Polineni Pavani Venkata Harika v. Management Quota pending digposal of the writ pqtition

Order

(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to declare the action of the respondents in not reserving l5o/o of un-reserved seats in Competent Authority Quota as per Presidential Order, 1974 and also the action of respondent No.2-university in not considering the petitioner for registration of admission into PG-Medical course for the academic year 2024 25 under Management Quota Category, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional ald sought consequentia-l directions (i) to the respondents to reserve l1Vo of seats of Competent Authority Quota for un-reserved seats as per Presidential Order, 1'974, (iil to the respondents to consider the petitioner for admission into Postgraduate Medical course under Un reserved seats, and (iii) to respondent No.2 university to permit the petitioner for registration for admission into PG-Medical course for the academic year 2024-25. FACTS:-

2. Shorn of unnecessa{/ details, the case of the petitioner is that shd is aggrieved by action of respondent No'2-University in \ \ t- *r,-t\ I ) HA,-.r(SP.J)&RY, Wp 1893_2025 rejecting her application for PG MD/MS course under 'Competent '-\ Authority Quolar'for the Academic Yeat 2024-25. The petitioner is native of Kharrrrn am District of Telangana State ald completed her school and int,ermediate education in the year 2012 frorn the State of Telangala.

3. The petitirner, after completion of intermediate: education, studied MBBS eLt NRI Medica-l College at Guntur Distrir;], of Andhra Pradesh State iand completed the said course in the year 2Ol7 . She got herself enrolled in Andhra Pradesh Medical tlouncil on

08.05.2019. 1'he petitioner, after completion of MBBS;. attempted PG NEET-202,4 examinations and secured rank of 182217 under General Category. On O8.01.2O25, respondent llo.2 issued notification for online registration under 'Competer: I Authority Quota' for P() Medical Degree/ Diploma courses frt 2024-25. Earlier, the cut off marks for General Category candidate were 5O percentiie. Flo'uvever, by the order dated 08.01.2():15, it was reduced to 15 percentile.

4. On 30.10.'2024, respondent No.2 issued prospectus for Postgraduate M.edical Degree and Diploma courses and opined that caldidates of other States are not eligible under 'Competent Aqthority QuoteL'. On 09.01.2025, tlne petitioner subrrLitted online t , / t 3 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wp_I893 2025 ,. application in the web portal of respondent No'2' On ll'Ol'2025' the petitioner received fina1 reminder message in her mobile number intimating to upload the certihcates on or before 1 1:OO AM on 12.01.2025, failing which the application will be rejected'

5. The stand of the petitioner is that on 1 1'O 1 '2025' the petitioner unsuccessfully tried to upload her certificates in online portal, but as per the slot of college allotted to the petitioner i'e'' NRI Medical College, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh' was not shown in the web portal and accordingly, the petitioner could not upload her application. The petitioner telephonically informed respondent {' No.2 about this difficultY I I I l i i I l I I I I I

Contention of the petitioner:- 6. Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court to certain paragraphs of common order dated 17.12.2024 in W'P'Nos'3O771 of 2024 and batcl:' decided by a Division Bench of this Court' urged that the Presidential Order, 1974 issued under Article 37 lD of the Constitution which deals with education still applies to the State of Telangana. The Presidential Order dated O3'07'1974 (Annexure P-5) is relied upon to contend that a conjoint reading of paragraph \ Nos.5 and 6 leaves no room for any doubt that 85% of the seats\ 4 HA.(J(SP,J)&RY. \\'p_l 893_202s a-re reserved irr lavour of 'local candidates'. The petitioner claiming her right of consideration against remaining l5ok vacancles.

7. The ne::t limb of argument is based on The Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules 2O2l ('Rules of 2O2l'1. It is submitted that Rule I deals w ith 'eligibility criteria' and as per thi:; Rule, the petitioner is 'very much eligible to participate in the admission process. RuLle-VIII deals with 'reseruation in fav,t rr of local candidates'. 'lhe Ruies of 2O2l were amended by G.O.Ms.No.148, dated 28. lO .2024 (Annexure P-2). It is strenuously cor-rtended that mainly Rtrle VIII of Rules of 2021 was amerLded which essentially deals with 'loca,l candidate'. Thus, Rule Iof Rules of 2O2 1 which p,rescribes tligibility criteria' has not undergone any amendment and the Division Bench in W.P.No.30777 of 2024 and batch clearly held that Rules-I, VI and VIII can co-exi.:t and there is no 'head on'between Rules-I. VI and VIII of Rules of 2021 . ln this backdrop, learned Senior Counsei for the petitic,rrer submits that the respondents have erred in depriving the petitioner from her right of consideration against 157o quota i 1 l I : I I I I i I 5 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wp-1893-2025 .. B. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to the counter filed by respondent No'2 contended that is based on whole defence of respondent No'2-University G.O.Ms.No.148, dated 28'lO'2024' The petitioner was held to be ineligible for 'Competent Authority Quota' as per G'O'Ms'No'148' It was further argued that the petitioner did not register herself As per G.O.Ms.No'148, a online for 'Management Quota'' caldidate can be treated to be eligible for admission into Postgraduate Medical courses only if he / she is Indian Nationa-l/Person of Indian Origin/Overseas Citizen of India Card Holder and be a'local caldidate'' It is submitted that the whole counter of respondent No'2 is based on G'O'Ms'No'148' which only amended Rules of 2O2l in relation of 'local candidate reservation' mentioned under Rule-VIII' Since petitioner is not claiming right of consideration as local candidate and conhning her claim against remaining 157o quota' G'O Ms'No'148 cannot be a hurdle for her. The previous minimum percentile i'e'' 5O percentile stood reduced to 15 percentile ald petitioner got more than 15 percentile marks, she is entitled against 157o quota' \ \ I 6 I Un lJ (SI',J) & R \\/p 1893 2025 Contention of the respondents:-

9. Sri T. fiharath, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, submitsi [hat from 2018, the selections are beirLgl conducted through NEE"|. 5O% of the seats are being filled up blr the Central Government t.hrough NEET and only remaining 5O% of the seats are being lillerl r-Lp by the State

10. He furt.h,:r submits that broadly there are tu'o kinds of quotas for filJ.ir-rg up the seats viz., 'Competent Auttrority Quota' and'Managernent Quota'. G.O.Ms.No.4O, dated 09.O5.2017, defines both the quotas. By taking this Court to the tlefinition of 'Management lieats' as per G.O.Ms.No.4O, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that apart from the seats which are earmarked frorn out of the salctioned intake of seats, remaining seats will be under 'Competent Authority Seats'. Putting it differently, it is submitted that only earmarked se:r1s shall fall within 'Management Seats' and remaining u,ill be under 'Competent Aut,hority Quota'.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 placed reliance on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of The Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Ao$, \ 2OL4 (for shLc rt, Reorganization Act') and urgerl that after formation of the State of Telangana, erstwhile districts of common I' I i 1 i I ? 7 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wp_1893-2025 1 Andhra Pradesh were bifurcated/ divided arnongst newly formed states i.e., Andhra Pradesh and Telangana' The Reorganization Act can be termed as 'temporary law'' The concept of temporary law has been considered by the Apex Court in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Biharr and it was held that if Parliament/State Legislature intent to revive the state of aifairs which were existing before the temporary law was promulgamated, it would have to bring a law which has a retrospective effect' A disapproval by the Legislature cannot revive completed tralsaction' This principle is buttressed to highlight the point that as per Section 95 of the Reorganization Act, the previous arrangement including method and extent of filing seats was required to be followed for ten (10) years which were over by 02.06 '2024' The selection in question is subsequent to the said date i'e', 02 '06 '2024 '

12. It is strenuously contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that after ten (10) years from appointed day i'e'' 02 -O7 .2014, there exists no bifurcation of 857o and 15% quota' The entire seats can be filled up by the 'local candidates'' The earlier concepts of 'zones' in relation to filling up the seats for education fades into insignificance' He submits that the Coordinate Bench in W.P'No'3o77 1 of 2024 and batch has not\q '(2017) 3 scc I I "ldlIXir. ,'h," 8 HI\(]J (SI,,J) & R Wp_1893 202s exarnined the matter from this point of view and, thr:refore, any observation ma(le therein regarding interpretation of lSection 95 of the Reorganization Act ald limiting of ten years mentioned hereinabove i:s d rstinguishable.

13. He furtLre r submits that a careful reading of G.O.Ms.No.148, dated 28.1O.2).Ct24, shows that from paras I to 4, the background is clearly men-:ioned pursuant to which the Rules ct 2027 were amended. Explanation (b) to Rule VIII (ii) although is struck down, the remaining Rule is still there in the statutorl book. The present petiti,cner is not covered under Rule VilI anrl not a'local candidate'for the purpose of admission in the State o1''Ielangana

14. lt is fr-rrther submitted that Presidential Notificeition of 1974 for the purpclse of admission cannot be treated to be extended beyond ten (10) years in the light of Section 95 of the Reorganizatio n Act. Thus, its applicability came to end on

02.06.2024. Reioinder submissions:-

15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, b1, placing reliance on a recent judgment of Supreme Court in Dr. Tanvi ,5 ) ) o' 9 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J wp_l 893_2025 .r Behl v. Shtey Goel2, submits that in PG Medical Courses, the selection has to be done on merits. Thus, alternative argument is that even if the petitioner is not entitled to be considered against 15% quota arising out of the Presidentia'l Order, 1974, she is entitled to be considered on her own merits. Thus, looking from any angle, the petitioner deserves a consideration on merits'

16. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties submits that the minimum percentile has again been reduced during the pendency of this writ petition. t7. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties'

18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties dt length and perused the record. FINDINGS: 19. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apposite to quote the relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.148 dated 28 'lO '2024 whereby the Rules of 2O2l were alnended, which reads thus: "G.O.Ms.No. 148 Dated:28.1O.2O24. Read the following:

1.The Andhra Pradesh Reorgarriation Act, 2074 (Central Act No.6 f 2014). '?2025 SCC Online SC 180 \ T t' a l0 t{1\(lJ (SP,J) & Wp 1893_202s

2.G.O.Ms.No.186, HM & FW (C1) Department, dated 20.09.2Ct2t. 3.G.O.Ms.No. 155, HM & FW '(Cl) Department, dated la.t I.2ct2l. 4.G.O.Ms.No. 109, HM & FW (C1) Department, dated 22.O8.2Ct22. 5.G.O.Ms.No.76, HM & FW (Cl) Department, dated 03.O7.2023. 6.From fle gistrar, KNRUHS, Warangal, Lr.No.1119/ KNRUIlrj,/Admissions/2O24, dt. 79.O8.2024. r. ORDER The Registrar, Kaloji Narayana Rao University ,rf Health Sciences, Te langana in the letter 6ft above, has proporsed certain amendments to the Telangana Medical Colieges (Admissions into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 202 1 issued in the G.O. third read abc,ve in view of the completion of 10 years lteriod after formation of T,:langana State 2. Sectiorr 9.'i of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization ,\ct, 2Ol4 (Central Act No.6 of 2074), provides that the existing admission quotas in all (iovernment or Private, aided or unaided, In stitutions of higher, tc'c hnical and medical education in so fa r as it is provided uncle r Article 371-D of the Constitutior-r shall continue as such for a period of ten years during which the existing common admission process shall continue. 3. Consequent upon expiry ofthe period often years prowided in section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act 2014, by 2od June, 2OL4, t\e Government, after careful examination of the matter, have decided to ameud the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Postgradua te Medical Coursesl Rules, 2021 issued vide G.O. third read above. 4. Accordingd.", the following notihcation shall be publish.ed in the Telangana Gzzette, Dated: 29. 1O.2024. NOTIFICATION In exercis;e of powers conferred by section 3 read rvith sub- section (1) of section 15 of the Telangana Educational Lt stitutions (regulation o.[ Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act no. 5 of 1983), the Government of T elangana hereby make the folltrving amendments to the Telansana Medica I Colleses (Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021 issued vide G.O .Ms.l'{o.155. HM&FW (c1) Dept, dated 1 8.11 .20'.21 , and as subsequentil. amended from time to time:- { ( '){ a In the said rules, 11 AMENDMENT HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wp_I893 202s (1) in Rule IV, for sub-rule (i), the following shall be substituted: namely:- "(1) 15o/o, 1O%o and 29o/o of the total number of seats notihed in each of postgraduate degree and diploma courses separately shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes respectively". (2) In Rule V, (a) for sub-rule (i), the following shall be substituted namely:- "(i) The reservations to SC, ST and BC categories shall be 15% lOVo ar,d 29Vo tn each broad specialt5/'. (b) sub-rules (xiv), (xv) and (xvi) shal1 be de1eted". (3) In Rule VI, for sub-rule (iv), the following shall be substituted namely:- "(iv) It is further clarihed that 'in-service candidate' means, a candidate who has Put in (a) two years of continuous regular service in tribal areas' Tribal service means service located in tribal areas institutions recognized by the Government of Telangana. (b) three years of continuous regular rural service "Rural service means service rendered in Primary Health Centres, Subsidiary Health Centres, Dispensaries, Taluk Hospitals, Mobile Medical Units, Leprosy Control Units or the sample survey-cum- Assessment units, under Leprosy Temporary hospitalization wards situated in Taluks and kprosy Training Centre in Telangana." (c) six years of continuous regular service: "Continuous regular service' means regular services in the State of Telangana in the following services:- (1) Directorate of Medical Education- .-1'. l ,} i..4.: l2 IIA(ji (sP.J) & R 'Wp_1893 2025 i2) Directorate of Public Health & Fan-r Lly Welfare. i3) Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad. i4) Insuralce Medical Service. i5) Singareni Coliieries. t6) Any other service notihed by Government ,rf Telangana". (4) In Rule \/lII, for sub-rules (i) and (ii) the following shall be substitutec[ :-ramely: - 6 (i) A candidate to be eligible for admission into P.G. Medical Courses under these rules should be an Indian National/Person of Indian Origin/Overseas Citiz,:n of India Card Holder ald be a Local Candidate (ii) LSgAlS4adldAlq_means a candidate who has studied in the erlr.rcational institutions in the State of Telangana for q pericd of not less than four (4) consecutive ! ears ending vri !l-r the academic vear in which he appeare d or as the cirsc may be, hrst appeared in the relevant qualifvil'lg erxamination subicct to: Explanation (a): A candidate who is regarded as a Local Candidate for the purpose of admissiorL to Undersrzxluate (MBBS) in the State of Telangana but has studied:Lr:. a State-wide Institutions outside the State of TelansarLa . shall also be rc arded as a Local Candidate Explanation (bl: A candidate, who has se:ured admission to the relevant Undergraduate Course (MIIBS) under Non-Local Quota in the State of Telangana, shall not be regarded as a Local Candidate. (5) In Rule [X, sub-rules (v) and (vi) shail be deleted. (6) In Rule IX, in sub-rule (xxiii), clauses (s) and (t) s.rrall be deleted. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVtrtaNOR OF TELANGANA) DT.CHRISTINA Z. CIJ ONGTHU SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT" (Emphasis Supplied)

20. The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the eligitrility criteria mentioned in Rule-l has not been ,/ /t 13 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wp_1893-2025 arnended by G.O-Ms.No.148 dated 28'lO'2O24' The petitioner is eligible under Rule-I and therefore, even otherwise' the petitioner has a right of consideration in a PG seat in Telangana' We do not see any merit in this contention for the simple reason that the G.O.Ms.No.155, dated l8.ll'2o2t, which is known as Rules of 2021, stood amend'ed by G'O'Ms'No'148, dated 2a'lO'2O24' Rules-I and VIII must be read conjointly' This is trite that the Courts must make endeavor to read and interpret different parts of the statute harmoniously, unless it is impossible to advance such interpretation. More-so, when valid'ity of amended Rules through G.O.Ms.No.148 is not subject matter of challenge'

27. It is equally noteworthy that in the previous round of litigation before the coordinate Division Bench in W'P'No'30771 of 2024 and batch decided' on 17'12'2O24' tine constitutionality of G.O,Ms.No.148 was challenged and the Court has reproduced it in The conclusion drawn bY the paragraph No.18 of its judgment' Court reads thus: "9O. In view of the preceding analysis, trxpianation (b) to Rule Vrrl ii! oi T.t..tg^tt, Medical Colleges (Admission into Post C.ual.t" Medical Courses) Rules' 2021 as amended by C.O.fVf".f". f +8, dated 28.LO'2O24, and Explanation (b) to R"l" I 1ii} of in" Telangana Admission.into Post Graduate invusni 6or.""" Rules, 2o24 issued-vide. G'o'Ms'No'149' iated 28. 10.2 O24, are struck down' Such petitioners who have State of .o-pl.t.d MBBS/BAMS/BHMS "9Yl=-I.o:;1,-th" Telangana or have compl'eted MBBS/BAMS/BHMS from 'local area' as dehned in the Presidential Ordet ' 1974 are held l t1 Hr\cJ (sP.i) & R Wp J 893 202s entitled to .oarticipate in the counselling for admission to post graduate c()urses in the State of Telangana in respe<;t of seats for local czrn<lidates for the Academic Year 2024-25." f.' (Emphasis :iupplied)

22. Only ExpLanation (b) of Rule VIII (ii) as amendecl by Rules of 2021 through (].O.Ms.No.148 and Explanation (b) of Flule 8 (ii) of the Telangana Admission into Post Graduate (AyUIlH) Courses Rules, 2O24 issued ujde G.O.Ms.No.149, dated 28.l).2024 were struck down. Thus, remaining portion of G.O.Ms.Nio.148 got a stamp of apprc,r'al from this Court. The Bench is ir:iformed that SLP No.307O6-.3O7O8/2024, against the order of judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3077 I of 2024, is pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court grarted an interim reiiel' to the in- service candidates. The petitioner is admittedly not zur in service candidate. The inevitable conclusion arises from thr: conclusion drawn by this ,3ourt in W.P.No,3O77I of 2024 and ba.tch is that the Rule VIII rvhich is coming in the way of the petitioner has not been set aside. Thus, said Rule is certainly corning in the way of the petitioner.

23. The contention of learned Stalding Counsei for respondent No.2 that after introduction of the examination system through NEET, 50% s€:ats are frlled up as All India seats an<1 remaining 50%o seats through Management and Competent Auth ority euota 6 t.- 1 I j ; a 15 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wp_I893 2025 has not been controverted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Thus, if the petitioner is eligible under 5O%o All India quota in view of reduction of percentile, the respondents shall consider her claim for the allotment of seat in accordance with law.

24. A careful reading of G'O'Ms'No'148 shows the background reasons for introduction of the amended Rules of 2O2l ' The reasons mentioned in G.o.Ms.No.148 which, in our opinion, were foundational reasons for amending the Rules' 202 1' The limited i.tt".f"."nce -was made in W'P'No'3077 I of 2024 and batch to the 'j : extent highlighted hereinabove '

25.LearnedSeniorCounselforthepetitioner,although,had taken pains to submit that in view of certain observations given in the judgment of W.P.No.3O77l of 2024 and batch' the 157o quota as per the .Presidential Order, 1974, stlll subsists against which a right of consideration' we are unable to persuade ourselves with this line of argument because it cannot be forgotten as to what is actually decided by the coordinate Division Bench in W.P.No.3O77 I of 2024. This is trite that precedent is what has actually been decided ald not what is logically flowing from a previous judgment (see Regional Manager v' Pawan Kumar \ , ;. ,.--&}* \ ' : '''i:'' -"' r t6 ru\(lJ (SP,J) & Wp_1893_202s Dubey3, Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat+ and Union of India v. Major Bahadur Singhs). The previotrs Bench in W.P.No.3077 1 of 2024 has actually did not interfere with G.O.Ms.No.148 except to the extent of declaring trxplanation (b) as ultra uires. 'Ihe remaining portion of G.O.Ms.N,:.148 dated

28.10.2024 i.e., Rule VIII (i) & (ii) is still coming in the way of the petitioner which were called in question in W.P.No.3O'777 of 2024, but were not interfered with.

26. In this petition, the petitioner has not chzr-1lenged the constitutionality of amended Rule VIII of G.O.Ms.No..t.18. This is trite that if constitutionality of a provision which is coming in the way of the pet.it-ioner is not called in question, the Cor:rt is bound to treat it as intra uires and interpret the same accor-dingiy (see Molar Mal v. Kay lron Work (Pl Ltd.6). This is equally settled that relief not claimed cannot be granted (see State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohantyz).

27. So far reliance on the judgment of Dr.Tanvi Behl (supra) is concerned, it ir; pertinent to note that those Writ pe.titions were t eln t976 sc tzoo o atn tgsz sc tot: 'lzoooy t scc :os lzoooy + scc zss 'lzor ry :.scc a:o 6 't t I \ I t 11 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wp 1893 2025 originally filed before Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging tine uires of the provision which were coming in the way of admission of the petitioners therein. While examining such provisions, the Apex Court gave findings in Dr.Tanvi Behl (supra)' At the cost of repetition, in the instant case, Rule-VIII of G.O.Ms.No.148 is coming in the way of the petitioner, but it is not called in question and in W.P.No.3O77l of 2024, the interference was not made to the said G.O.Ms.No.148 except to explanation (b)'

28. The background facts and reasons for G.O.Ms.No.148 make it clear that the operative reason was that as per Article 37 lD of the Constitution and Section 95 of the Reorganization Act, the existing admission quotas shall not continue beyond a period of ten years. Despite the fact that issuing G.O.Ms.No.148 is pregnant with this object and reason, the entire G.O., and the provisions which are coming in the way of the petitioners were not interfered with by the previous Bench' Thus' the judgment of Dr.Tanvi Behl (supra) cannot be pressed into service in the instant case where no challenge is made to the offending provision. In view of forgoing analysis, we find no reason to interfere 29. with the matter and the Writ Petition sans substance and is , : \ r8 I I,,\(]J (SP,J) & Wp i 893_202s hereby dismissed. The ad inteim relief gralted eia rlier stands vacated. Th,:re shall be no order as to costs. Nliscellaneous applications, -if zrny, pending shaIl stand closed. A SD/-N. SRIHARI GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Family \^/elfare -q Secretariai Bulldings, State of Telangana, Hyderabad-500 05ti 2. The Registrar, Kaloji Nararayana Rao University of Health Sciences, epartment, Warangal.

3. One CC to Sftl N4 DURGA PRASAD, Advocate IOPUCI 4 Two CCs to GP FOR IMEDICAL HEALTH FW, High Court for [he State of Telangana. IQtJT]

5. One CC to $Rl T.SHARATH, SO for Kaloji Narayana Raq University qf Health Scienbes Warangiil. tOP-qCl

6. Two CD Copies BSK BS 1 I I To, '] l HIGH COURT DATED:0410312025 ORDER WP.No.1893 of 2025 I I .14' .l'i.*1 t- , i.E S ..i ,,: I :i \;r IIAB 2W (s (- o \. .l^ '\ 3.s. ITCuEO * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I /z ,/7/J /., 1 \