The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. J. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, firledical and Health Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, represented by its Registrar, Warangal, Telangana. Pralima lnstitute bf medical sciences, Pratima lnstitute of medical sciences, Represented by its Principal / Chairman Nagunur, Telangana 505417. (Respondent No.3 is impleaded as per Co. dt. 16-06-2025 Vide lA.No. 2 of 2o25in w'P' No'12797 ot 2o25) ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue directions, orders, more so, a Writ, in the nature of [\rlandamus, by declaring the provisron (Xvii) (a)of Rule 4 of selectron process of G.O.tVs No.114 dated 5.7.2017 as unconstitutional and further listing the name of the petitioner in the lrst of not eligible candidates for into [\ilBBS course as arbitrary, illegal and uncon slitutio nal and consequently directing the respondents to delist the name of the petitioner from the Iist of ineligible candidates for ADMISSION INTO MBBS/ BDS COURSES in academic year 2025 -2026 by duly permitting the petitioner to participate in NEET counseling for the academic year 2025- 2026 - lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participale in NEST counseling for the academic year 2025- 2026 for ADIVISSION INTO I\IBBS/ BDS COURSES during the pendency of the above writ petition lA NO: 3 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the Respondent.no.2 herein, in not considering representation dated .- 30-10-2024 and 15-04-2025 and delisting the name of the petitioner lrom the list of eligible candidates for ADIVISSION INTO MBBS/BDS COURSES in academic year 2025- 2026 as illegal, arbitrary, uncon stitution a I and consequenlly directing the respondents to delist the name of the petitioner from the Iist of ineligible candidates for ADt\/lSSlON INTO IVBBS/BDS COURSES in academic year 2025- 2026 by duly permitting the petitioner to participate in NEET counseling for the academic year 2025-2026 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D. S. KISHEN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI R. NAGARJUNA REDDY, AGP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI T. SHARATH, SC FOR KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES Counsel for the Respondent No.3:- The Court made the following: ORDER THEHON'BLE THECHIEI' JUSTICE SRI A.PARESH KI'MAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE G.M. MOHITIDDIN WRIT PETITION No.12797 OF 2o.25 ORDER: Heard Sri D.S.Kishan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medicai and Health for respondent No- I , Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-University and perused the record.

2. This writ petition is hled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of Mandamus (i) to deciare Clause (xvii)(a) of Rule 4 of the Selection Process under G.O.Ms.No.114, dated O5.O7 .2017 , as unconstitutional; (ii) to declare the action of the respondents in listing his name among ineligible candidates for MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2025-2026 as arbitrary arrd illegat; and (iii) consequently, to direct the respondents to permit him to participate in the NEET counselling for 2025-2026. Factual Matrix

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as chronicled in the petition, are that the petitioner, having qualified in NEET-

2. UG-2024 participated in the NEET-UG-2O2.1 counselling process for admission into the MBBS course under the Management Quota. The petitioner was provisiorLally allotted a seat in the MBBS course at Pratima Institu,e of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, under the Management Quota in the Mop-Up phase of counselling. The provisional al otmen[ letter, dated 24.10.2024 (Ex.P6) stipulated that the petitioner had to report to the college by 3:00 PM on 29.10.2024, with a1l original certihcates and the requisite tuition fee of Rs.24,0t),0OO / -.

4. The pe titioner presented himself at the college on the appointed day with a Demand Draft (DD) for Rs 12,00,000/- and an account payee cheque from his father for the remaining balance amount of Rs. 12,OO,OOO/-, making up the total tuition fee of Rs.24,0O,O00/-. The coliege authorities refused to accept the payment in hybrid form in two instrumen'rs i.e., DD + Cheque and insisted on a single DD or a Banker's cheque for the entire fee. The petitioner pleaded for time ur-rtil the next day to arrange a single DD, but this request v,,as declined. Consequently, he was marked as "Not Repor ed" and his provisional admission stood cancelled. In conson:rr-rce rvith the rules governing the administration process, the Urrivers iLy, uide le tter da[ed 24.12.2024, invoked the penalty clauise under the -:) administration notihcation dated 22.70.2024 , imposing a debarment for three years from admission to MBBS/ BDS courses ald a monetary penalty of Rs.20,0O,000/ - for "seat blocking". Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the debarment as arbitrary, illegal and unconstutional. Contentions of the petitiouer

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fervently argued that this was not a case of deliberate seat blocking. The petitioner was seriously desirous of pursuing the course, as evidenced by the petitioner's physical presence at the coilege with a substantial part of the fee in the form of a DD. The inability to furnish the entire sum by way of a DD on the very last day was the petitioner's default, which was not wilful but was a result of a bona ftde difficr:Jry in arranging a single instrument at short notice. He emphasized that the petitioner was hnancially ready and willing to pay the fee, as evidenced by the DD and cheque presented. The insistence on a single DD, he contended, was an arbitrary and hyper-technical requirement that vitiated the process. He further argued that the penalty of debarment for three years is disproportionately harsh, violates Articie 14 of the *::ll 4 ! Constitution, and amounts to a "civil death" uporr the academic caree r ol a y-oung student aspiring to become a doctor. Contentions of the respondents

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel 1br respondent No.2 UniversitrT defended the impugned action with robust reasoning. He argued that the rules of administr,ation to highly competilive professional courses like MBBS must adhere to sLrict, time-bound schedules to ensure fairness, transparency, and finaiity- The condirion requiring a single DD Ibr the fee was clearly stipulated in the notification and was 1 measure to prevent dela1,s, disputes, and potential dishonor-Lr of cheques, q,hich could disrupt the entire admission schedule. He stressed that the petitioner, having participated in the process, !\ras deemed to have accepted ali its terms and conditions.

7. He argued that the penait5r clause is not a mere procedural formality buL a crucial deterrent intended to curb the pernicious practice of "seat blocking,,' that cleprives other dcserving cnndidates of opportunities ald creates artificial vacancies ar the eleventh hour. The rule, fortihed by the amendments in G.O.Ms.Nos. 125, 126, and 127 dated

22.09.2022, u.hich increased the penalty from Ils.3 lakhs to Rs.2O l:,rkhs, reflects a deliberate legislative policl- to curb this TW 5 malpractice. The debarment, he submitted, is a necessary and proportionate measure to maintain the integrity of the admission process

8. Learned Standing Counsel further argued that the petitioner had a clean window of five days from the date of allotment of the seat to the date of reporting i.e., on 29.1O.2024 to arrange ltnances in the prescribed manner. The failure of the petitioner to do so, however, unfortunate cannot be a ground to grant an exception, which would invariably open the flood gates for similar claims and deraii the meticulously structured, time- bound admission schedule. Analysis and Reasoning

9. The core issue that falls for our determination is whether the imposition of a penalty of Rs.20,00,OO0/- and three years debarment on the pe titioner for his faiiure to join the MBBS seat can be termed as arbitrary, illegal or disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. It is trite law, settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'l:le Apex Court that the process of admissions to professional medical courses is not a matter of private contract between an individual and an institution. They are a highly 6 regulated state activily conducted in the nature ol'a trust for the beneht of all eligible candidates. The timeline for each phase of counseliing lrom the firsl round to the mop-up round is sacrosanct. The entire competitive process is built on the bedrock of certaintSr, fairness and estimation of subjective drscretion. Any relaxation/ deviation for one candidate, however genuine his reason may seem or even if motivated by sympathy would have a cascading effect, jeopardizing the chances of other candidates rvaiting in the queue and undermining, the hnality of the process Lhcreby compromising the integrity rtf the system. Reference can be made to a decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India a. Mad.hu Singht regarding the importance of adhering to schedules in academic matters. 1 1. The prospectus and the admission notification govern the rights and obligations of the candidates. The notihcation for mop up phasc ol counselling dated 22.10.2O24 contained an unambiguous clause 13, which provides as follows: 13) Selectcd car-rdiclates have to report to the principal of the rcspective college before the last date for lorning as spccihed on the allotment letter, submit all original certificates, relevant bonds ald pay the tuition ft:e/college fee Lo completc the proccss of admission. If the :andidate ' 1:oo:1 z scc :ss 7 does not fulhtl the above criteria to completc the admission process within specihed date for joining' the admission will be cancelled automatica-lly arrd penalty clausc shall be applicable including penerlty amount of Rs-2O.OO lakhs and debarment for 3 years to prevcnt seat blocking. The Nature of the Default 12. The petitioner's inability to present a single DD was a failure to meet a clearly stipulated condition of the allotment' The requirement for a single, guaranteed instrument like a DD is a reasonable administrative measure to ensure immediate and irrevocable payment, thereby securing the seat' Accepting a cheque, which is subject to clearance, or multiple instruments' introducesanelementofuncertainryanddelaythatthesystem is designed to avoid. The petitioner's hardship' though unfortunate, was a foreseeable contingency for which he ought to have been PrePared.

13. The petitioner's argument that a bono rtde case does not alter lhe legal position. It is not for the University or for t]ris Courl to conduct a roving inquiry into the financial preparcdncss o[ each candidate. The insistence on payment by Demand Dralt is a standard, prudent, and reasonable requiremenl to ensure the finality of the admission and to avoid 8 l the uncertaintlcs associated \',,ith personal (.heques. The petitioner u,as provirlt:d a rcasonable window. i,l' fivc days to compllr rvith this requirement. His failure to do so places him in the same ciltcgory as an-v other candidate who rlid not report and the consequenccs mr.lst noccssarily be the szrrnc:. Pro ortionalit of the Penalt

14. The core of the petitioncr's challenge is ag:rinst the severity of [he penaltv. The Doctrine of Proportiorality requires the Court to examine u,hcther the restriction implsed by a rule is disproportion ate to thc object it seeks to achicvc. The object here is crystal clear: to detcr candidates from a( - ('ptiltg a seat without a firm intcntion to join, thereby blockirg a seat that could have gone to another candidate. "Seat blrcking" is a serious menace that disrupts the entire allocation process and is detrimental to the largcr studcnt community. 'llre penalty of debarment for three Jre.rrs, though severe, is a calibrated response to this persistent problem. It is intendr_'cl to impress upon candidates the gravity of the commitment thc! make when they exercisc their web options. It is not a punitivc measure in isolation but a protective measure for the systent as a whole. The increase rn the monctary penalty to Rs.20 lakhs by the 2022 amendme n ts undcrscores thc scriousness u.ith which the I legislature views this issue. We find the penalty to be proportionate to the legitimate aim it seeks to achieve. No Infriugement of Article 14 of the Constitution

15. A law or rule is not arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution if it is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the object squght to be achieved. The classihcation here is between candidates who comply with the reporting conditions and those who do not. This classification is inteltigibte and has a direct nexus with the object of ensuring a smooth, fair, and hnal admission process. The rule applies uniformly to all candidates in the same situation. Therefore, it docs not sufler from the vice of arbitrariness. Conclusion The Limits of Eouitv under Article 226 of the Constitution: 16. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is equitable and discretionary. However, equity cannot be invoked to defeat a specific statutory or regulatory provision, especially one that serves a larger public interest as laid down in Umesh Deuqii Burande a. Stdte oJ Maharashtra and other*. Further, to granl relief to the petitioner would be to unsettle a process completed for the academic year 2024-25 and to prejudice the t 20: t SCC onl.ine Bomba1 3907 I I |.1 i t0 \ . .-,.-1 - rights of othcr candidares who abided by the rules. This Court cannot, in thc guisc of equiry, create a parailt:l or special dispensation lor the peril ioner.

77. For the foregoing reasons, u,e hold that thr: action of the respondents in debarring the petitioncr for three \ e:lrs 1s neither illegal and arbitrary nor unconstitutional. lt is a valid application o[ a rule designed to preserve the sancrtt $ of a high- stakes admission process. 'I'he writ petition, being clevoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

18. Accordingly, the Writ pctition is dismissed. ,lhere shall be no order as to costs. Conse<1-rently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SDi- M.NAGAMANI TANT REGISTRAR ASSI $ \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. D. S. KISHEN, Advocate tOPUCI 2 WO CCS tO GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAIVIL\ WELFARE. HiOh 3. ONC CC tO SRI. T. SHARATH, SC FOR FOR KALOJI NARAYANA RAO Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] uNrvERStTy OF HEALTH SCIENCES [OpUC]

4. Two CD Copies BIV TKS P^(q. HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 ,z: . '. .tc- st tli ORDER WP.No.12797 ot 2025 ./, "" ,> Ii... ,, '..' c ,1 [ [ti ?$fi DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS zq\ro\u{