Chemudugunta Neeharika v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstance.s stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Regulation 4.2 of the prospectus issued by the respondent No.2 for Admission into Post Graduate lVledical Courses under Competent Authority Quota for Academic Year 2024-25 dated 30.'10.2024 which mandates the candidates claiming SC/ST/BC categories to upload latest social status certificate issued by the Competent Authority of Government of Telangana as violative of Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021 dated 18.11.2021 and also violative of Articles 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the resportdlnt No. 2 to recognize the Schedule Caste (SC) community certificate issued by the competent Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh in favour of petitioner for purpose of Admission into PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses Academic year 2024-25 in pursuant to NEET (PG) 2024-25, under the aegis of KNR University of Health Sciences, Telangana State. lA NO: 'l OF 2025 4 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Regulation 4.2 ol lhe prospectus issued by the respnndent No.2 for Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses under Competent ,Authority Quota for Academic Year 2024-25 dated 30.10.2024 pending disposal of this Writ petition. , lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition underr Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to recognize the Schedule Caste (SC) community certificate issued by the competent Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh in favour of petitioner for purpose of Admission into PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses Academic year 20214-25 in pursuant to NEET (PG) 2024-25, under the aegis of KNR University of l-lealth Sciences, Telangana State. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitione. to file additional affidavit in the present Writ Petition No.1359 o'f 2025 in the intere st of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. MAYUR REDDY, SENTOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI A. SUDHARSHAN REDDY, THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI T. SHARATH, S.C. FOR KNRUHS WRIT PETITION NO:24930F 2025 Between: 9t:,ippg9.a _Bhanuprasanna, D/o_ Chippada Srinivas, Age: 2l years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.7-360, Opp Amrutha Milk Agency, Tallarevu East Godavari District, Ap. ,..PETITIONER 5 AND 1 The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, tVledical, Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-S0O 055

2. Kaloji Nararayana Rao University of Health Sciences, represented by its Registrar, Warangal. ...RESPONDENTS Pqtition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularty in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Regulation 4.2 of the prospectus issued by the respondent No.2 for Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses under Competent Authority Quota for Academic Year 2024-25 dated 30.10.2024 which mandates the candidates claiming SC/ST/BC categories to upload latest social status certificate sued by the Competent Authority of Government of Telangana as violative of Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021 dated 18.1 1.2021 and also violative of Articles 'l 5, 16, and 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to recognize th.e BC-B (Telikula) Community certificate issued by the competent Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 20.03.2024 in favout of petitioner for purpose of Admission into PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses Academic year 2024-25 in pursuant to NEET (PG) 2024-25, under the aegis of KNR University of Health Sciences, Telangana State. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Regulation 4.2 of the prospectus issued by the respibndent No.2 for Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses under Competent Authority Quota for Academic Year 2024-25 dated 30.10.2024 pending disposal of this Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 6 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent lJo. 2 to recognize the Backward Caste BC-B (Telikula) Community cedificate issued by the competent Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 20.03.2024 in favour of petitioner for purpose of Admission into PG Medical .Degree and Diploma Courses Academic year 2024-25 in pursuant to NEET (PG) 2024-25, under the aegis of KNR University of Health Sciences, Telangana State. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition undr:r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file additional affidavit in the present Writ Petition No.2493 of 2025 in the interr:st of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. ABHAYA KUMAR SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI A. SUDHARSHAN REDDY, THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI T. SHARATH, S.C. FOR KNRUHS WRIT PETITION NO: 2501 OF 2025 Between: Devarapalli Joseph, S/o Devarapalli Ravindra, Agei 27 years, Occ: Student, Fl/o. Plot No. 103, Raghurant Pride, Q line, llPD Colony, Near Sai Baba T'emple, Ponnur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh AND ..-.PET|T|ONER

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hydeiabad-500 055 2. Kaloji Nararayana .Rao University of Health Sciences, represented by its ' Registrar, Warangal ...RESPONDENTS 7 Petition under Article 226 of Ihe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Regulation 4.2 of the prospectus issued by the respondent No.2 for Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses under Competent Authority Quota for Academic Year 2O24-25 dated 30.10.2024 which mandates the candidates claiming SC/ST/BC categories to upload latest social status certificate issued by the Competent Authority of Government of Telangana as violative of Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021 dated 1Bl1 112021 and also violative of Articles 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to recognize the Schedule Caste (SC) community certificate issued by the competent Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 06.01.2025 in favour of petitioner for purpose of Admission into PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses Academic year 2024-25 in pursuant to NEET (PG) 2024-25, under the aegis of KNR University of Health Sciences, Telangana State. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Regulation 4.2 of the prospectuS issued by the respondent No.2 for Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses under Competent Authority Ouota for Academic Yeat 2024-25 dated 30.10.2024 pending disposal of this Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to recognize the Schedule Caste (SC) community certificate issued by the competent Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 06.01 .2025 in favour of petitioner for purpose of Admission into PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses Academic year 2O24-25 in pursuant to NEET (PG) 2024-25, under the aegis of KNR University of Health Sciences, Telangana State. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 8 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma1, be pleased to permit the petitioner to file additional affidavit in the present Writ Petition No.2501 of 2025 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. AAHAYA KUMAR SAGAR Gounsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI A. SUDHARSHAN REDDY, THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI T. SHARATH, S.C. FOR KNRUHS WRIT PETITION NO: 2506 OF 2025 Between: Adapaka Renuka, I)io Adapaka Ganesh, Age: 27 years, Occ: Student, Rl/o. H.No 22-1-634, Kata Veedhi, Near Ramalayam, Vizayanagaram, Andhra Pradesh. AND 1 2 The State of Tg!a1gan!r, represented by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Famil'y Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hydeiabad-500 055 Kaloji Nararayana Rao University of Health Sciences, represented by its Registrar, Warangal. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Regulation 4.2 of the prospectus issued by the respondent No.2 1'or Admission into Post Graduate Medical Qourses under Competent Authorily Quota for Academic Year 2024-25 dated 30.10.2024 which mandates the canclidates claiming SCiST/BC categories to upload latest social status certificate iss;ued by the Competent Authority of Government of Telangana as violative of relarrgana Medical colleges (Admission into postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021 dated 18.11.2021 and also violative of Articles 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to recognize the ScherJule caste (sc) community certificate issued by the competent 9 Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 14.07.2023 in favour of petitioner for purpose of Admission into PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses Academic year 2024-25 in pursuant to NEET (PG\ 2024-25, under the aegis of KNR University of Health Sciences, Telangana State. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Regulation 4.2 of the prospectus issued by the respondent No.2 for Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses under Competent Authority Quota for Academic Year 2024-25 dated 30.10.2024 pending disposal of this Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to recognize the Schedule Caste (SC) community certificate issued by the competent Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 14.07 .2023 in favour of petitioner for purpose of Admission into PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses Academic year 2024-25 in pursuant to NEET (PG) 2024-25, under the aegis of KNR University of'Health Sciences, Telangana State. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file additional affidavit in the present writ Petition No.2506 of 2025 in the interest-of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANJANAYULU YADANABOYINA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI A. SUDHARSHAN REDDY' THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI T. SHARATH, S.G' FOR KNRUHS 10 WRIT PETITION NO: 2507 OF 2025 Between: Kukatikonda Jyothirmie, D/o. K. Veeranna, Age: 27 years, Occ: Student, Rl/o. '1- 1696-1, Gandhi Nagar, Yemmignur, Kurnool District, AP. AND ...PETITIONER 1 2 The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-500 055 Kaloji Nararayana Rao University of Health Sciences, represented by its Registrar, W;arangal. ...RESPONDENTS Petition und er Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Regulation 4.2 of the prospectus issued by the respondent No.2 for Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses under Competent Authority Quota for Academic Year 2024-25 dated 30 10.2024 which mandates the candidates claiming SC/ST/BC categories to upload latest social status certificate issued by the Competent Authority of Government of Telangana as violative df Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021 daled 18.11 .2O21 and also violative of Articles 1 5, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to recognize the BC-D (UPPARA) Community certificate issued by the competent Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 03.1 0.2024 in favour of petitioner for purpose of Admlssion into PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses Academic year 2024-25 in p,u15g2n1 to NEET (PG) 2024-25, under the aegis of KNR University of Health Sciences, Telangana State. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Regulation 4.2 of the prospectus issued by the respondent No.2 for Admission into Posl Graduate Medical courses under competent Authority euota for Academic Year 2024-25 dated 30.10.2024 pending disposal of this Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 11 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to recognize the Baikward Caste BC-D (UPPARA) Community certificate issued by the competent Authority, Govemment of Andhra Pradesh dated 03.10.2024 in favour of petitioner for purpose of Admission into PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses Academic year 2O24-25 in pursuant tb NEET (PG) 2024-25, under the aegis of KNR University of Health Sciences, Telangana State. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file additional affidavit in the present Writ Petition No.2507 of 2025 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. ABHAYA KUMAR SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI A. SUDHARSHAN REDDY, THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Gounsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI T. SHARATH, S.C. FOR KNRUHS The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER -) THE HOIIOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos.1255, 1359 ,2493,25O1, 25O6 and 2507 of2o25 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justtce) Regard being had to the similitude of the questic,ns involved, these matters were alalogousiy heard and decid ed by this common order. Facts:-

2. The fa<;ts are taken from W.P.No.1255 of 2O25. The petitioner has chalienged the legality, validity and constitutionality of Clause 4.2 of the prospectus which according to her has arr adverse impa,:t on the prospects of the petitioner. Ttre petitioner studied from l"t standard to l2th standard in the State of Andhra Pradesh and completed 12t' staldard in the year .2016. She appeared for NtrET UG 2016 ald secured admission through .B, category on merit basis ald allotted to Mallareddy Meclical College for Women's, Hvderabad, Teialgana, for academic yet:r 2016-17. Accordingly, sihe completed her MBBS course ald passed Finaj examination i:e the month of April, 2O2I wlth registratr.on number

1601020028. She also completed her one year ,compuisory rotatory internship in the same college front O1.O(.,.2O2I and 4 3t.O5.2O22. Though, she appeared for NEET PG 2022 and 2023' she could not secure good score

3. The National Board of Examination in Medical Science (NBEMS) has issued Notification for Admission to Post Graduate courses NEET PG 2024 on 16.04.2024, exarn was conducted on

11.08.2024 and results were declared on 23.08.2024. The petitioner appeared for the said examination with registration number PG24O86163 and secured A11 India Rank of 51285. The petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste (SC) (Mala) Communit5r and holds caste certificate issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 24.04.2024, which certifies that she belongs to MaIa (SC) Community, which is recognized as Scheduled Communit5r/Caste under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe List (Modification) Order, 1956 and the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Amendment) Act, 1976 as amended from time to time.

4. On 30.10.2024, Respondent No.2 issued prospectus for admissions into PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses under the Competent Quota for 2024-2025. On the same day, a notifrcation was also issued stating that online applications and certilrcates uploading shall begin at O6:OO AM on 31.10.2024 and' \ \ ) close at 06:0O PM on 07.11.2024. Pursuant tr-r the said notification,:he petitioner registered for postgradur,rte medica-l admission under competent quota for the academic yt:ar 2024-25 by paying req'risite fee.

5. The petitioner is not treated to be local candidate'in view of hurdle created by Rule VIII of the Telangana Medir.:a_l Colleges (Admission in to Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 202 1, as amended b1' C.O.Ms.No.148, dated 2a.1O.2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the said Rule in W.P.No.31317 of 21.024, wlnich was decided cn 17.12.2024. In obedience of judgmenl of Division Bench in the said Writ Petition, the petitioner \ -as treated as 'local candidate'. brLt her caste certificate issued bv the Gov.ernment of Andhra Pradesh was not accepted. In the result, the petitioner was treated to be general category candidate and benefit of reservation was not given to her. The impugned Clause 4.2 became part of the prospectus with effect from 1 6.04 .2024 , whereas the a,Cmission process began much before thal . Contention of the petitioners:-

6. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions have assailed the prospectus arLd action of respondents in not treatinq SC caste certificate of 'Mala' community issued by the authorjties of the 6 Andhra Pradesh State for twin reasons. Firstly, on the basis of recent Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Courtr, it is subrnitted that the rules of the game cannot be permitted to be altered in the midst of the game. In view of this Constitution Bench judgment, the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court that the said principle may be made applicable in the case of employment and not in matters relating to education is incorrect. Secondlg, the States of Andhra Pradesh ald Telangana carne into being from unified erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. 'Mala' is a notified SC communit5r in both the States. In this peculiar factual backdrop, there is no justification in not accepting the caste certifrcate of sarne community issued by the authorities of the Andhra Pradesh for the admission in the State of Telangana- More so, when the Apex Court in Commissioaer of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi v' Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals (Pl Ltd.2, State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar3 ald State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lafarge Dealers Associationa, opined that the erstwhile laws would be in force in the nerv state unless altered, repealed or amended in accordance with law' Since no exclusion ' (zoz+) $cc ont-ine sc 3184 ' (2004) 6 scc 689 ' (2025) scc ool-ine sc 15 o (2019) 7 scc 5E4 I \ \ 7 of 'Mala' castr: took place in the State of Telangana ald said caste is in SC category in both the States, the petit.ioner Lras valuable ald enforceable constitutional right to enjoy reservation based on the aforesaid caste certificate

7. Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, placed further reliance on the judgm ent of the Supreme CotLrt in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtras and the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Preeti Gopal Rao Kable v. State of Maharashtra6, to bolster th e submission that when reserrzed cornmunity is notified in both the States, the petitioners cannot be derprived from the fruits of caste certificate arrd reservation in tl-re State of Telangarla- Contention of the resoonden ts: B. Sri A. S rdharshan Reddy, learned Advocate Ger eral for the State of Telangana, on the other hald, submits that pr.ospectus is issued even- vear. Any clause of previous prospectus will not create arry enlbrceable right in favour of the petitionenl. More so, ivhen the que stion involved and right claimed is governed by a ' (2004) 9 scc 481 " zor3 (2) Mh,L..r 8 constitutional provision namely Article 34L 1342 of the Constitution. By placing reliance on the Information Bulletin 'NEET-PG 2024', it is urged that different States have different reservation policies. State eligibility criteria and Government/ Counselling authorities were requested to create their own application forms customized to their requirements to determine the eligibility of the candidates for opting for seats in the concerned State based on their eligibility criteria, reservation policies, benefit to in-service candidates and beneht to candidates who have undergone rural/ diffrcult area postings.

9. Heavy reliance is placed on three Constitr.r.tion Bench judgrnents of the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S.Medical CollegeT, Action Committee v. Union of Indiat and Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Boards. It was urged that in these judgments, it was poignantly held that even if a particular caste is reserved category caste in both the States, unless a specihc certificate is issued by the CompetenJ Authority of the particular State where the selection is taking place, the certificate issued by alother State is not acceptable. ? (1990) 3 scc l30 8 (1994) 5 scc 244 ' (2018) ,to scc 3 t 2 I I I 1 \ 9

10. Learned Advocate General also placed reliarce on the definition of 'larv' as per Section 2 (I) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2O14 ('Reorganisation Act') and referred the same to show that the laws prevailing earlier will continue only for ten years as l)er the Presidential Order. Thus, any stipulation in previous prosipectlrs issued within those ten years permitting caste certificeLte of the other State will not create a.ny right in favour of the petitioners. A conjoint reading of Sectic,n 95 of the Reorganisatio.e Act, Article 37 1-D of the Constitution and the Presidential Ctrder, leaves no room for any doubt that the beneht of the caste certificate issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh does; not confer caste status on the petrtioners for selection in the State of Telangana. I 1 No other point is pressed.

12. We har.e heard at length and perused the record

13. During t,he course of hearing, the parties jointil,' submitted that the legal question in these batch of matters are similar and only in W.P.No. 1359 of 2025, the caste certificate wa s issued in $-e year 2O 13 i. e., at the time of unified State of Andhra pradesh. l l t t I f I I l0 Findings:-

14. l,earned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has filed written legal submissions in addition. It is apposite to reproduce the relevant portion, which reads thus: "I. It is submitted that a prospectus is not law and not even executive instruction , but is merelY a handbook for students It is submitted in such a glven bv the concerne d University. case a prosDectus cannot remove or determine whether caste certificates siven Lrv the residual State of Andhra Pradesh mav be applicable in the bifurcated State of Telansana Only statute or delegated legislation in the form of Rules may to determine constitutionally protected in the form of caste certificate and an ordinary prospectus cannot determine whether caste certificate of the residual State of Andhra Pradesh may or may not be applicable in the State of Telangala." (Emphasis SuPPlied)

15. It is noteworthy that challenge in these Writ Petitions is to Clause 4.2 of the prospectus dated 3O.1O.2O24, which in the opinion of the petitioners itself is neither law nor an executive instruction. As projected by the petitioners, in the previous prospectus, the caste certificate issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh was admissible in the State of Telangana and this provision is changed in Clause 4.2 of the impugned prospectus' In this backdrop, the argument based on Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) was developed by contending that rule of ga*t c'n"ot \ permitted to be changed midway and to the detriment of the candidate. Irr view of the stand of the petitioners thernselves, the prospectus curnnot be treated as law or execlrtive instruction or Rule. Thus, the principle of changing the rule of gzrme midway and judgmen.t in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) cannot be pressed inl-o service

16. The ma"tter may be viewed from another ang1e. Even assuming that impugned clause of the prospectus has some force, by no stretch of imagination, it can have more forr.:e than the constitutional p::ovision i.e., Article 341 of the Constitution, which reads thus: .Article 341. Scheduled Castes:- (1)The Prr:sident may with respect to any State o: Union territory, rrnd rvhere it is a State after consultation rvith the Governor thereof, by public notihcation, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or group within castes, races or tribes u,h; ch shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed tc be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union tcrritorv, as the case may be. (2)Parliament may by iaw include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issue<l under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notilication issued ur,der the said cladse shall not be varied by any subsequent notification." (Emphasis Supplied) 1,7 . The words 'in relation to that State' used in Art icle 341 (i) are of great significance ald importance. In the llght of this expression, ttre question cropped up before the Constitution I I I I 12 Bench in Marri Chandra Shekar Rao (supra) is whether the petitioner therein can claim the beneht of being an Schedule Tribe (ST) in the State of Maharashtra thor.rgh he had, as he states, an ST Certihcate in the State of Andhra Pradesh? Pertinently, in the said case, the petitioner therein belonged to Goudi, also known as Gouda community, which is a Schedule Tribe Community in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner therein participated in the selection in MBBS course in local colleges run by Bombay Municipai Corporation/ State of Maharashtra. Indubitably, ST candidates of Maharashtra, who secured lesser marks than the petitioner therein, were admitted. The litigation originated because of the said reason and petitioner therein claimed that the caste certificate issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh must be honoured in the State of Maharashtra. The Apex Court opined as under: "22. ln that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the medical college on the basis of Scheduled Tribe Certifrcate in Maharashtra. In the view we have taken, the question of petitioner's right to be admit- ted as bein e domicile does not fail for considerdtion." (trmPhasis SuPPlied)

18. Another Constitution Bench in Action Committee (supra) I I followed the ratio deciderudi of judgment of Marri Chandra Shekar Rao (supra) and opined that the caste certificate issued by one I \ 13 State cannot be used in another State. Despite the fact that relevalt community in both the States is notified as reserved community. Both the aforesaid Constitution Bench judgments were again r:onsidered by another Constitution Br:nch in Bir Singh (supral and the Court after following the dicta of previous judgments opined as under: "24. Whenever States' reorganisation had taken plac,: in the past, Parliament had exercised its powers under Articles 34 1(2) anrl 3a2Q) and provided for specilic Castes/Tri bes that were entitled to be recognised as Scheduled Castes and Schedulccl Tribes in relation to the reorganiserd States/Union Territories,. The Scheme of the Constitution (Sc heduled Castes) a ed (Scheduled Tribes) Orders makes it cl,::ar that was to extend the benr:hts of Parliament's intention reservatlo 1} ln relation to the States/Union Territorie the caster; Orders." races or tribes as mentioned in the Presidential (Emphasis Supplied)

19. In paragraph No.34 of the said judgment, it was poignantly held as under: therefore, it can be said that a. person "34. Unhe sitatinelv. to a Scheduled Caste in one Srate cannot be belonqin deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to an other Sta te to which he migrates for the puroose of emplol'ment or education The expressions "in relation to that State or Union Territory" and "for the purpose of this Constituti,rn" used in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India would mean that the benefits of reservation provided for by t-re Const itution would stand confined to the seosraDhioal territories of a State/Unio n Territory in re spect of \iihich the lists of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tri bes have been notified by the Presidential Orders issu ed from time to time. A person notilied as a Scheduled Caste in State 'A' cannot claim the same status in arlother State on tti. b"..* that he is rleclared as a Scheduled Caste in State A'." (Emphasis Sr.rpplied) l4

20. In view of these binding Constitution Bench judgments, there is no manner of doubt that caste certificate issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh is not acceptable for the selection in question in State of Telangana.

21. As per G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 22.O1.2015, the Government of Telangana specified the communities ald competent authorities, who cal issue caste certihcates. The relevant portion reads thus: Column I Sl.No. Specified Community Scheduled Castes 34. Mala, Ayawaru 35 36. JI Mala Dasari Mala Dasu Mala Hannai

38. 39. 40. Mala Mala Masti Mala Nethani 41 Mala Sanyasi Annexure -I Column 2 Competent Authorities mala A11 Tahsildars in the State not below the Rank of Deputy Tahsildars -do- do- Al1 Revenue Ofhcials not below the Rank of a RDO/Sub- Collector/or Asst. Coilector in the State -do -do- Sale, AI1 Tahsildars in the State not below the Rank of Deputy Tahsildars A11 Revenue OIIicials not below the Rank of a RDO/Sub- Collector/or Asst. Collector in the State Column 3 Jurisdiction within Territorial Jurisdiction of a Mandal -do- -do- Territorial Jurisdiction of a Revenue Division held by RDO/Sub- Collector/Assistant Collector -do- -do- Within Territorial Jurisdiction Maldal Territorial Jurisdiction of a Revenue Division held by RDO/Sub- Coilector/Assistant Collector l \ t5

22. Admitted11., the caste certihcates of the petitiont:rs have not been issued b1 the said competent authorities of l.he State of Telangana. For this reason also, their caste certificates calnot be pressed into senice in the selection in question

23. So far, the judgments in A. Satish Kumar arrd Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd (both supra) on u.hich heary relialce is placed are concerned, suffice it to say th at both the judgments ar: not dealing with the question of caste certificates. The judgment in A. Satish Kumar (supra) \.vas arjsing out of criminal proc:eedings, whereas the judgment in Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals {P) Ltd (supra) deals with exemption,/concession /rebate under sales ta-x of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981

24. The thrr:e Constitution Bench Judgments in Marri Chandra Shekar Rao, Action Committee and Bir Singh (ali supra) are directly on tb.e point dealing with the questions involved in the present batch of matters. Thus, we are bound by the Oonstitution Bench judgmt:nts which clearly deal with the question in hand. It is trite that precedent is what is actually decided by the Court and trot what is logically flowing from it (see State of Orissa v. 16 Sudhansu Sekhar Misralo and Chanchal Goyal lDr) v. State of Rajasthantt). It is equally settled that a singular different fact or point involved in a matter may change the precedential value of the judgment (see Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar MiIl (P) Ltdr2). Thus, the judgments in the case of A. Satish Kumar and Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals {Pl Ltd. (both supra) are of no assistance to the petitioners.

25. The petitioner also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Preeti Gopal Rao Kamble (supra) and Shweta Santalal Lal v. State of Maharashtrara, wherein the Constitution Bench judgments 1n Marri Chandra Shekar Rao, Action Committee and Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (relied upon by the petitioners) (all supra) were also considered and the Full Bench opined as under: "23. We propose to deal with each of the conclusions. (i) to (ix)... (x) Insofar as conclusion (x) is concerned, having explained the Judgment in Sudhakar's case which is the Judgment of the Bench of three Judges and the two Constitution Bench Judgments in Marri Chandrashekhar and Action Committee, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes from any locality which has been divided upon Reorganization of States and such caste or tribe. is also 'o etR l96ti sc e+r " (2003) 3 scc 4Es " (2ooi) 2 sac t '' 20lo (2) Mh.L.J t I t7 recognized as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in the newly formed State, such migrant would not be entitled to benefit of reservation in the State of misration but would be entitle d onlv ofbenefit in the State oforisin." (Emphasis S upplied)

26. In vieu, ,rf the forgoing discussion, it is clear that curtains on the question involved are finally drawn by the three (.lonstitution Bench judgments of the Supreme Court ald the same view is I followed in Ra.njana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhandt a. I I

27. In vierv of these Constitution Bench judgments (supra), we are unable to persuade ourselves that the caste certificate issued by the State rtf Andhra Pradesh can confer any const itutional or vested right tc, the petitioners to enjoy the caste status in the State of Telangala.

28. The casr: of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No. 1359 oI 2025 must meet the sarne fate because after formation of th,:: States of '|, Telangana anrl Andhra Pradesh,,pel,u nofilitations came into being prescribing rr:senzed ."te;;tl:.".' aird th") eompetent authorities, !- t-', t t.. I .-. ((; ) who carr issur: such certificates for both the States. Admittedly, certificate of this petitioner is not issued by any such competent authority from the State of Telangana. " lzotl; ts scc eo+ I 18 r-)

29. Thus, no relief is due to the petiticners in this batch of petitions. All the petitions sans substance and are hereby dismissed. Ad inteim orders granted eariier shall stand vacated. There sha1l be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL AS S ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI ON OFFICER To, One Fair Copv to the HON'BLE THE ACTING CtllEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL - -(For His Lordship s Kind Perusal) one Fair copy to the HON',BLE SMT-' JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA - - -'1Fot Her Ladyship's Kind Perusal)

1. 11 L.R. CoPies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Advocates Association Library, High Court Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Buildings, HYderabad

4. One CC to SRI ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to GP for Medical Health and Family Welfare' High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI

6. Two CCs to SRI A. SUDHARSHAN REDDY' THE ADVOCATE GENERAL' " it"h do',itt i,rt tti" siate'Jt ieiangana at Hvderabad' [oUTl 7. One CCto SRI T. SHARATH, S C' foTKNRUHS [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI S. ABHAYA KUMAR SAGAR' Advocate IOPUCI 9. One CC to SRI ANJANAYULU YADANABOYINA' Advocate TOPUCI 10.Two CD CoPies BS,% MP I t 13 HIGH COURT DATED:10 10212025 COMMON ORDER W.P.Nos.1255,1359, 2493,2501, 2506 AND 2507 OF 2025 ::r TS A r Etl ( 20 flPA ll75 2 i C r € s DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS o