IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4729-4730 OF 2008 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 8414-8415 OF 2008 )

Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, A.P. Rep. by its Registrar       .... Appellant (s)

Versus

B.V.M. Prasad & Ors.       .... Respondent(s)

O R D E R  

1) Leave granted.

2) Heard both sides.

3) These appeals are preferred by the appellant herein – Dr. N.T.R. University of

Health Sciences, Vijaywada, A.P. represented by its Registrar.  The first respondent was

a M.B.B.S. student in the Government Medical College at Ananthapur.  He was to appear

for the final year M.B.B.S. examination, and he  submitted a representation through

his father for change of the  centre   of   examination.  The   

1

University has rejected the said request whereupon respondent No.1 has filed a writ

petition  before  the  High  Court  seeking  permission  to  write  the  examination  at

Warangal.   It  is  urged  therein  by  the  first  respondent  that  he  was  having  some

depression and he wanted to write the examination at the Medical College, Warangal as

his  parents  are  working  there.   The High Court,  by  its  interim order,  directed the

University to permit the student – respondent No.1 herein, to write the examination at

Warangal.  We are told that the student has already completed the examination and the

result is awaited.  The High Court, by the impugned order, directed the authorities to

declare his result.  Questioning the same, the University has filed these appeals.

4) It was contended by the learned counsel for the University that the High Court

should  not  have passed interim order  giving undue advantage to  respondent  No.1

herein to write the examination at Warangal as his parents are employed there and the

said direction is also against the rules.  The High Court found that the respondent’s

case was exceptional one.  After observing that this should not be  

2

treated as a precedent directed the official respondents to declare his result.  In our

opinion, the High Court has exercised its discretion and we do not wish to interfere

with the same at this juncture.

5) The appeals are disposed of accordingly.  No costs.

     …….…….……………………CJI.

                                                 (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

   ...…………………………………J.                                 (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

NEW DELHI; 28th  JULY, 2008.     

3