The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 21804 OF 2025 Between: A.Varshini, D/o Late A. Krishna, Aged 20 y Colony, Quthbullapur, Medchal-Malka.igiri D ears, H.No 4-446, Near Masjid, Suraram istrict, Telangana State - 500055 AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The Kaloji Narayan Rao Universrty of Health Sciences, Rep. by lts Registrar, Warangal, Telangana State ...PETITIONER Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Direction more particularly in the nature ...RESPONDENTS of Writ of Mandamus (a) declaring the Notification and prospectus dated 15.07.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 wherein the respondents have prescribed that a candidate _shall study or reside for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years for admission into Under Graduate courses under Competent Quota in Telangana as Local candidate as per Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission, (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules 2017 as amended vide G O. Ms Ng13 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (Cl) Department dated 19.07.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 1 as being violative of Articles 11,19 and 21 i of Constitutron of lndia: (b) The Constitutronal and legal validity of Rule 3(a) of Telangana lVledical and Dental Colleges Admission, (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules 2017 ar; amended vide G.O. Ms. No.33 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department dated 19.07.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 1 is hereby challenged on the ground that it is violative of Articles -14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and the orders of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 21910 of 2024 and Batch dated 05.09.2024 and W.P. No 21268 of 2023 and Batch dated 29.08.2023 which had become final which specifically held that the place of study or residence for a period of 4 consecutive years prior to qualifying exam does not have any rational nexus and object sought to be achieved by 2017 Rules; (c) declaring that the petitioners are Local candidates for all the purposes of Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses for the Academic year 2025-26 under the aegis of KNR University of Health Sciences, Telangana State. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'l 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 Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission, (Admission into tVlEBS and BDS Courses) Rules 20'17 as amended vide G.O. IVls. No.33 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department dated 19.07.2024 pending disposal of tl-is Writ petition pending disposal the above writ petition. ! I I I I t I t I 'i + + .; * ; + , 'tt ,t' a ,1 4 '1.t -7 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 treat the petitioner as a Local candidate in the Telangana State for admission into TMBBS/BDS for the academic Year 2025-26 under competent Quota in pursuant to NEET (UG) 2025 in accordance with orders of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the orders of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court ni W.P. No. 21910 of 2O24 and Batch dated

05.09.2024 and W.P, No.21268 of 2023 & Batch dated 29.08.2023 and pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY 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, S.C. FOR KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLI) THE CHIEF JI'STICE SRI APARESH KTJIVTAR SINGH AND THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIT'DDIN WRIT PETITION No. 218O4 of2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petltloner, S::i R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government F'leader for Medical and Hea-lth appearing for respondent No.1, Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing tlounsel for Kaloji Narav,rnr Rao University of Health Sciences airpearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record. 2- This rvrit petition is filed under Article 226 of tlne Constitulion of India, with the following prayer:- "..........to i.:sue a uit or order or direction more porticularlg in the n.oture of Wit of Mandamus (a) declaring the Notification and prospectus dated 15.O7.2025 i.ssuecl bg the Respondent No.2 uherein the respondents haue prescibed that a canctidote sLnll studg or reside for a period oj not less than forrr consecutiue academic gears for admiss;.on into [Jnder Groduate courses under Competent Quota in Telanga na as Local candidate as per Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical <\, .Dental Colleges Admission, (Admission intc MBBS &BDS Oourse-s/ Rules 2O17 as amended uide G.O.,Vl;-. Iy'o.33 Health, MeCical and Familg Welfare (C1) Departmer,.t dated 19.07.2O24 i,ssued bg the Respondent No. 1 ct:; being uiolatiue of Artictes 14,19 and 21 of Con-stihttion of htdia; (b) The Colstitutional and legal ualiditg of Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical &Dental Colleges Admission, (Aambsion into MBLIS &BDS Courses) Rules 2017 as amended ui.de G.O. Ms. No.33 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department dated 19.07.2024 issued by the Responclent No. 1 is here,bu challenged on the ground that it is uiolatiue of Articles 14,19 and 21 of Constihttion of India and the: orders of the Diuision Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 21910 of 2O24 & Batch dated 05.O9.2024 and W.P. No.21268 of *-, \ ') 2O23 &Batch dated 29.08.2023 uthich hod become final uhich specificallg held that the place of study or residence for a peiod of 4 consecutiue Aears prior to quali.fging exam does not laoue ang rational nexus and object sought to be achieued by 2017 Rules; (c) declaing that the petitioner as Local candidates for all the purposes of Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses for the Academic year 2025-26 under the aegis of KNR UniuersitA of Health Sciences, Telangana State; and (d) to pass such other orders a.s the Hon'ble Courl mag deem Jit in the circam.stances of thi.s case and in the interest of justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was born in Telangana on 17.O2.2OO5 and her Birth Certiflcate, Aadhaar Card, arld other residential documents establish her domicile. Further, it is contended that she completed her Class I to VIII (2010-2018) in Telangana. However, she pursued her Class IX (2018-2019) and Class X (2O 19 -2O2Ol in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and returned to Telangana to complete her Intermediate i.e., Class XI and XII in the years 2O2O-2O22. Subsequently, after she was qualihed NtrET (UG) -2025 she sought admission under the 'Competent Authority Quota' which was reserved for local candidates.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the underlying writ petition contends as follows: i. that an application for admission into MBBS/BDS courses was made to the respondent No.2-Universi[z for the academic year 2025-26 and accordingly respondent No. 2 issued the admission prospectus which were issued pursr-rant to the Telangana Medical & Dcntal Colleges Admission Rules, 2077 (for short 'Rules 201.7.) .as .r' --' amended b5' G.O. Ms. No. 33, dated 19.07.2024 and released a notification dated L6.O7.2025 for online registratior-r for the said courses, wherein the prospectus, mandated compulsory submission of a residence certificate as per Annexure-l], stipulating four years of continuour; study or residence in Telangana prior to the qualifying examination. that the said requirement contradicts and vioiates the binding directions of this Court in order dated 05.O9.2O24 in W.P. No. 21910 of 2024 & Batch and in order dated 29.O8.2O2.3 W.P.No.2 1268 of 2023 & Batch wherein this Court has held that a residence certificate is sufficient for categorization as a local candidate. that the sarid the Regulations were framed in pursuant to Rule.3(a) of Rules 2Ol7 as amended uide GO. Ms. No.33 dated 19 07 .2024 , as framed under the Telalgana Education,al Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibitiorr of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983. that as per regulation 2.2 of the prospectus, he is treated as non- lor:al even though he is permanent resident of Telangana State which is violative of orders of the passed in W.P. Nc,. 2191O of 2024 & Batch and in W.P.No.2l268 of 2023 & Batch. ll. tI1.

5. We have tzrken note ol the respective contentions urged.

6. It is pertinent to note that, though the learned counsel for the petitioner tras vehemently contended and relied on the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.21268 ol 2023 & batch, dated 29.08.2O23 and in W.P.No.219lO of 2024 & batch, dated O5.O9.2O24 , u'herein it was r"beld the previous incarnation of t 1 \ 4 Rule 3(a) to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, interpreting 'local candidate' to mean a candidate whose 'domicile'is Telangana or who is a'permanent resident'of the State. However, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid legal position is unequivocai and does not support the petitioner's case, as the aforesaid judgements which have been relied by the learned counsel for petitioner were stayed by the Honble Supreme Court uide order dated 2O.O9.2024 in SLP(C) Nos.2l536 21588 of 2024. Further, the learned counsel's assertion that the SLP's were dismissed thereby upholding the view taken by this Court is factually incorrect.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sto:te of Telangana and others u. Kalluri Naga Narasimhrr Abhiram dnd othersl while setting asidc the impugned judgment dated. 29 -O8.2O23 of this Court, has categorically held as under:

37. For all the reasons noticed aboue, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023 of the High Court of Telongana.

33. We haue alreadg held that th.e pre-amended ruLe defining a local candidote wos perfectlg in order, uthich reasoning applies squarelg to the amended rule also- There u)as no uarrant for a reading doun when the defnition is clear, in consonance uith the Presidential Order and similar rules hautng been upheld by this Court as coming out from the binding precedents. We find no reason to take o different uieu.t uith respect to the amended rule also; 15ok hauing been conceded to the All-India quota. 34. We also obserue that the learned Aduoc:ate General has handed ouer a further amendment proposed, incorporating a prouiso to Rule .j as follotus:- | 2025 S( C Onl-ine SC t880 I. Prouided t,\at a candidate LUho studies outside Telangana for ang peiod during the requisite four consecutiue academic years ending u-ith the academic gear in u.thich he appeared, or as the ca-se maA be, ftrst appeared in the releuant quolifuing examinotion u-,ill be eligible td be considered if theg fall under ang of the belotu categories: 1 . Childre'n of emplogees of the Telangana State Gouernment uho haue serued or are seruing outside Telangana corresponding to the candidate's Aear/ s of studA outs ide Telangana.

2. Children of seruing or retired emplogees belonging to the TelarLga na cadre of AII India Seruices (IAS/ IFS/ IPSI who haue sented or are seruing outside Telangana correspondi'ng to the candidate's gear/ s of study cnttside Telangan.a.

3. Children of defence personnel/ ex-seruicemen/ Oentral Anned Pohce Force seruice uho at the tiine of joining seruice, haue declared their hometou.tn to be in the State of TelarLganta and u.tho haue serued. or are seruing autside Telangarta corresponding to the candidate's gear,/ s of s tud14 out side Te lang ana. Children of emplogees of

4. a Corporat ion / Age ncy / Instntmentality under Gouernment of Telangana, liable to be transkrred anyuhere in India o-s per the tenns and conditions of his/ her emplogment, uha haue sen ed or are seruing outside Telon.gana corresponding to the candidate's gear/ s of studg outside Telangan.a. II. Subject to the candidate submitting Certificate of emplogmett Jiom the competent authority for the candidate's fitther/ mother's seruice outside the State for the peiod correspondtng to the candidate's year/ s of stttdg outside Telangana.

36. The altpeals of the State and the Uniuersitg are olloued, setting astde both the impugned judgments in the Writ Petitions filed by the students. The Wit Petitions and the SLP fled bg the students before this Court, o-s a consequence stand disrnissed; houeuer, utith the reseruation insoJ ar as candidates utho are couered bA the prouiso to Rule 3 as specified irt poragraph 34 aboue. No order as to costs- t 6 Therefore, the legal position enunciated in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 & batch, dated 29.O8.2O23 and in W.P.No.2l9lO of 2024 \i & batch, dated O5.O9.2O24, was suspended in the light of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Kalluri Naga Nc,rasitnha Abhirann's case (supra l,f and cannot be relied upon as a binding precedent. Purther, it is not the case of the petitioner that she lall within the proviso to the Rule 3 of the Rules, 20 17. a. It is pertinent to note that the requirement of four consecutive years of study or residence is a conscious policy choice made by the State and has been designed to create a rational and verifiable classification to identify students who have a sustained and profound connection with the State's educational ecosystem. This Court in its judicial review cannot substitute its own wisdom for the legislative policy behind the Rule unless the said Rule is manifestly.arbitrary or violates the Constitutional framework. The Rule delineates a specific class and ensures equal treatment of all individuals within that class, however, the petitioner does not fall within this dehned class. Therefore, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, as the classihcation is founded on an intelligible distinction and bears a rational nexus to the legislative objective of regulating admissions. 1

9. It is settled in law that the State possesses the authority to prescribe otrjective, quantifiable, and rational criteria for determining the status of a 'local area' candidate for the purpose of admission to educational institutions, and such status does not constitute an absolute right ve sted in every permanent resident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradeep Jain a. Unlon oJ India2, has held as under:

79. It u:ill b<: noticed from the aboue discussion thot though intra-State Ci.scrimination betueen persons resitlent in different districts or regions of a State has bg and lanle been frouned upon bg tLLe Court and struck down as intalid os tn Minor P. Rajendran ca.se IAIR 1968 SC 1O12 : (196t]l 2 SCR 786 : (1968) 2 SCI 8O1l and Peeia-karuppan case lll971) 1 SCC 38 : AIR 1971 SC 2303 : (1971) 2 SCR 43Ol the Court has in D.N. Chanchala case [(1971) 2 SCC 293 : AIR 1971 SC 1762 : 1971 Supp SCR 608/ and other similar cases upheld institutional reseruation elfected through uniuersitg u-tbe distibution tf seats for admission to medical colleqes. The Court has also bg its deci.sions in D.P. Joshi case IAIR I955 SC 334 : (1955) 1 SCR 1215: .1955 SC/ 2981 and N. Va:;undara case [1971) 2 SCC 22 : AIR 1971 SC 1439 : 1971 Supp SCR 3811 sttstained the constitutional ualidity of reseruatiLtn based on residence requirement within a State for the purpose of admission tc medical colleges. These decisions u-thich ull relote to admissiort to MBBS cotlrse are binding upon us and it is therefore nat possible for us to hold, in the face ttf tlrcse decisions, that residence reqtirement in a State for ad mi.ssion to MBBS course i-s irrational and irreleuant and connot be introduced as a condition for admission u.tithout uiolating the mandate of equality of opportunitA contained in Article 14. We ntust proceed. on the basis thot at leo.st so far as qdmission to MBBS course is concented. resid.ence requirement in a State can be introduced. a.s a cc'ndition for adrnission to the MBBS course. It is of cout'se t'ue Cornmittee ir; establishect ba the Gouernrnent of India has in recomm.encled. after trrkinq into account all releuant the Medical Education Retieu) :(1984)3scc654 rd to the ractical d utould be on q.ll-India ba-sis considerations, that the "fi na.l obiecthte should be to ensure that all ad.rntssions to the MBBS course should be ooen to cqndiddtes on an all-Indicr basis utithout tlrc imposition af existing domicilidru condition". but ho;vino Ities o tro,/7.sition to the stdge where cdmtssions to MBBS course in oll medical the Medical coI Education Review Committee h,(Is ested "that to beqin urith not less th(i,n 25 per cent seats in each instittttion rnag be open to candid.ates on all-India ba.sls". We are not at all sure u.thether at the present stage it uould be consistent uith the mondote of equalttg in its broader dgnamic sense ,o prouide that admissions to the MBBS course in all medicol colleges in the country should be on all-lndia ba-sis. Theoretically, of course, if odmissions ane given on the basis o.f all-Itt@ notional entrdrtge exo,,7.ination, each individual would. hanp equal oppordtnitlt of secttrinq cdmtssion, but thdt tDould not take into accourtt diterse considerations such as differing leoel oJ social, economic and. educational regions, disparitu in the develooment of different nunber of seats duailable for a.dmission to the MBBS qgu1se in different States, dif.fic.t.tlties uhich mag be g\qterienced b! student-s Jrom one region uho night in the coma,etition on all-India basis get admission to the MBBS course in another remote m their 9!o4 and other allied factors. There can be no doubt that the policg of ensuing arJmissions to the MBBS course on all- India basis is a highlg desirable policg, based as it is on the poshllate that India b one nation and euery citizen of India is entitled to haue equal opportunitg for education and aduancement, but it is an ideal to be oimed at and. it maA not be realisticallg possible, in the present ctranmstances, to adopt it, for it cannot produce real ecTtttlity of opporlunitg unless there is complete absence of dbpaities and inequalities * a situation which simplg does not eist tn the country todag. There are massiue social and economic dispaities and inequalities not onlA betueen State and State but also betueen region and region uithin a State and euen betueen citiz,ens and citizens uithin the same region. There is a ganuning gap betlueen the ich and the poor and there are so manA disabilities and injusttces from uthich the poor suffer a.s a class that theA cannot auail them.selues of any opportunities tuhich mag in Lou) be open to them. Theg do not tlaue the sociol and material resources to tuke aduantctge of these opporttntties uhich remain rnerelg on paper-7ecognised bg law but non- ) - 9 existent in fa:t. Students from backu.tard Stotes or reqktns will hardly be abie to compete utith those from aduanced -slcles or regions because, tlnugh possessingr an intelligent mind, theg uould hnue lnd no adequate opportunities for deueloprnent so as to be in a position to compete utith others. So al-so .sl dents belonging to tlle ueaker sections u.tho haue not, bA rlrl.son of ttrcir sociallg or economicallg disoduantaged positior', been able to sea,:.re education in good school-s tttould be at a disaduantage compared to students belonging to the <tfJluent or well-to do families who haue hni thE best oJ' school education an.d in open all-India competition, the31 uould be likelg to be worsted. TLere utould also be a number of s;udents utho, if theg do not get admission in a medical college near their residence and are assigned admission in a far oJ.l college in another ,State as a result of open alllnd.ia competition, m.ag not be able 10 go to such other college on accounl ol'lack of resources artd facilities and in the result, they tuc-,uld be effectiuelg depriued of a real opportunitg for pursuing the medical course euen though on paper theg uould httue got admi-ssion tn a medical college. It rtould be tantant)unt to telling tLese students that theg are giuen an opporlunitg of taking up th,z midical course, but if theg cannot afford it bg reason of the medical college to uhich theg are admitted being far awag in another State, it is their bad luck: the Statc cannot help it, because the State has done oll that it couLd, rtamelg, prouide eqtal opportunitg to all for medicaL educrtlion. But the E)estion is u.thetLer the opportunitA prouided is reql or itlusory? We are therefore of thc dew thot a _cgrtairy percentd.ge of resentation on the basis of residence maa legitimatelu be made in ord.er to equdlise orrportunities for medical ad.mission on a broader ba:;is and to bri actuql and. not nEre The percentage oJ- reseruation rnade on this count mag also include institutional reseruation -for students passing the PUC or pre -medical examination of the same uniuersitg or clearing the qrrutifutng examination from the school sgstem of the edu cattonal hinterland o,' th.e medical colleges in the State anci .for this purpose, there should be no distinction betuteen schools affiliated to ,State Board and schools affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Mucation- It tpould be constitutionallu pennissibte to provide, a.s an interim '7tecll;ure until ute wlten we can consistent utith thc broad reach the rn(Ind.ate ot' the rule of equatita in the larqer sense. ensure adrrt.issions to the MBBS course on the n(rtio,f'(Il entrance examination - an ideal tuhu:Lt ttrc m.ust about real and not l l0 , increa.singly stiue to reach - for reseruation of a certdin percentage of seots in the medical colleges for students satisfAing a prescibed residence reql,Lirement as a/.So for students uho fnue passed PUC or pre-medical examination or ang other qnlifuing examination held by the uniuersitg or the State and for this purpose it should make no difference ushether the qualifuing examincttion is conducted bg the State Board or bg the Central Board of Secondary Education, because no discrimination can be made between schools alfiliated to the State Board ctnd scltools affilioted to tle Central Board of Secondary Education- -.. . (emphasis supplied)

10. It is pertinent to note that in the absence of any pleadings or evidence demonstrating compliancc with the prescribed alternative objective criteria, thc petitioner cannot claim any legitimate expectation or right to be rccognized as a local candidate. The State is entitled to establish objective and verifiable standards to ascertain residency. Thus, the petitioner's failure to satisfy any of these prescribed criteria constitutes a complete and sufficient basis for respondent No. 2 to classify her as a non-local candidate.

11. Further, the petitioner's claim to domicile status based on a 'Residence Certificate' issued by the Tahsildar is misconceived. The Prospectus (Annexure-ll) mandates a specific format for the Residence Certificate, which is to be issued exclusively to candidates who have resided continuously for four years within the State and not to those who have pursued studies outside the State. Therefore, the petitioner's certificate, which ambiguously refers to a "gap in education", fails to comply with l1 the prescribed mandatory format ald thus, was rightly rejected by respondent No.2-University.

12. In light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kallurl Noga l,tarasimha Abhiranzr's case (supra l), th.e petitioner's oase that she must be treated as a local candidate is legally untenable, as being failed to satisS the stipulated criteria. Cor-rs<:quently, we hnd no merit in the writ I)etition and the challenge t,.l the vires of Rule 3(a) of the Rules 20 L7 fails.

13. Accorclingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to (rosts. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. SD/.A, SRINIVASA REDDY STANT REGISTRAR SSI //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To 1 One CC to liRl ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY, Advo 2' Two CCs to GP for Medical, Health and Family We|fare, High Court for the e [Cl)UC] State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU!

3.OneCCtoSRlT.SHARATH,S.C.forKalojiNarayanaRaoUniversityof Health Sciences IOPUC]

4. Two CD Copies MP \ck- BS - I I I a I I I ;,/' +. , & I j> HIGH OURT DAI'ED:1910912025 ( oR tHE SIa 14: o 0'l tirli 236 Dc qrr.1 -r._-:_.:_ i a \ -. l/ 1., ,// .,/ ORDER WP.No.21804 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4"8^ Xdv\D'' i I I * ,;, + + t ,h I + 4 s i! I I' ! i i t I