1. Silamkoti Yanjleena v. 1. The State of Telangana, Education Department

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 writ of mandamus to set -a- side the Grace marks given to the National Cadet Corps (NCC) students as per GO.Ms.No.75, Caled 0410712023 by implementing the previous 1 percent Reservation in the place of of GO.Ms.No.114 of dated OSl07l2O17, into notification issued by the KNR University of Health and Science for admission into MBBS And BDS through N EET Examination notif ication dated 1 5107 12025. lA NO: 1 OF 202s 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 consider the Representation dated 30/05/2025. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SAI KIRAN counser rorthe Respondent No'l '$ P8*1liHt$EBtBilit , Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI R.NAGARJUNA, GP FOR MEDICAL HEAL'TH FW Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Counsel for the Respondent No.4TOG : MS.L.PRANATHI REDDY, Sr.SC FOR CENTRAI. GOW. counser for the Respondent No.7 ' 33'rt;Tf[*]$i W.P.No.22 540F 2025 Between: Toutaam Sheshu, S/o. Toutaam Shrinivasu, Age- 19, Occ- Student, Ro.No.19-6-263, Rangashaipet, Near Mahankali temple, Warangal, Telangana - 506005. ...PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Education Department, Rep by its Principle Secretary Situated at Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, Situated at Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

3. The National Medical Commission, Rep. by its Chairman, Pocket-'l4, Sector B, Dwarka Phase -1, New Delhi - 110077.

4. The National Testing Agency, Rep by its Chairs person, C - 20,lA/8, Sector - 62, llTK, Outrich Center, Noida (UP) - 201 309.

5. The Government Of lndia, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, Rep. by its Secretary, Directorate General Of, Health Serv, New Delhi, Delhi 1 1001 1.

6. The Deputy Director General, NCC Directorate General, General Choudhary Road, Secunderabad, Telangana - 500003.

7. Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Science, Warangal, Reo by its Registrar' warangal' ..RES'.NDENTS 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 writ of mandamus to set-a-side the Grance marks given to the National Cadet Corps (NCC) students as per GO.Ms.No.7S,'dated 04.07.2023 by implementing the previous 1 percent Reservation in the place of GO.Ms.No.1 14 of dated O5.O7.2017, into notification issued by the KNR University of Health and Science for admission into MBBS and BDS through NEET Examination notification dated 15.07.2025. 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 direct the respondent No.2 to consider the Representation dated 30.05.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SAI KIRAN counserfor the Respondent No.l '3; F3*1liHt$EBtt"iI"b_ counser for the Respondent No.2 '3FtftH1"ff3lit=orr, ,* Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : counsel for the Respondent No.4ro6 : Ivlrs.LPRANlliliffi?%tur. counsel for the Respondent No.7 , S|'rlt*tlffilfiti The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JI'SflCE SRI APARESH KT'IIIAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIT'DDIN WRIT PETITIONS Nos.22O49 AND 22854 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the issues that arise in the above writ petitions are integrally one and the same, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Sri S.Sai Kiran,.learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sujatha Kurapati, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for respondent No.1, Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare appearing for respondent No.2, Ms.L.Pranathi Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel lor Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6, Ms.lshrath Begum, learned counsel representing Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences appearing for respondent No.7 and perused the record.

3. W.P.No.22O49 of 2025 has been filed by three students who are members of the National Cadet Corps (NCC).

4. W.P.No.22854 of 2025 has been liled by another student who is also the member of the NCC. \ 't \ 2

5. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the decision of the Telangana State Government to replace lo/o horizontal reservation quota for NCC cadets in MBBSiBDS admissions with a system of grace marks added to their NEET_ uG scoros, w'hich was enacted through G.o.Ms.No.75 dated

04.o7 .2023

6. The old policy under G.o.Ms.No.114 datecl os.o7.2olr, provided zr clear lo/o reservation for NCC cade:s within the horizontal reservation mark6 for medical admissions.

7. The .new policy G.o.Ms.No.75 dated 04.or.2023 abolished the 1%o qtrota and introduced grace marks (3% for NCC ,8, certificate, 5o/o for camp participation and. To/o for participation in Republic Day camp) to be added to the N[IET score of students.

8. The grie'ance of the petitioners is that the old policy under G.o.Ms.No.114, dated os.o7.2017 which p:ovided for a dedicated l%o quota was more beneficial, than the new system of grace markrs which is insufficient and less beneliciai.

9. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus; i) to set aside the grace marks under G.O.Ms.iVo.TS; ii) to restore and implement the previous 106 reservation for NCC cadets as per G.o.Ms.No.Ll4 for the current admission cycle (2025-26); and J iii) to direct the respondents to consider their representation dated 30.05.2025

10. The main contention of the petitioners is that the replacement of assured lo/o seat quota with nominal grace marks is arbitrary and violative of principles of equity and it fails to adequately recognise the sacrifices and contributions of the NCC cadets i 1. Core contentions on behaf qf the petitioners: i) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that having joined NCC and dedicated significant time and effort based on the existing lVo reservation policy under G.O.Ms.No.l14, the students have a legitimate expectation that the said reservation policy would continue. The sudden change in the year 2023 by introduction of G.O.Ms.No.7S unfairly prejudices their prospects in obtaining a seat in MBBS/BDS. ii) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that replacement of a concrete lo/o quota with a variable and uncertain system of grace marks is arbitrary and irrational. The system of allotment of grace marks fails to adequately recognize the sacrifices and contributions of NCC cadets, inasmuch as the grace marks may not translate into actual admissions in the MBBS/BDS course, unlike a fixed reserved seat as a result of lo/o fixed quota. \ \ \ \ 4 iiil The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends; that the grace marks (3% for NCC 'R' certificate, so/o for camp participatron, 7o/o for participation in Republic Day camp) are a poor substitute for a reserved seat. It is argued that a dediczrted quota is a more substantial'anc secure form of incentive for NCC cadets to undergo NCC training at the significarLt cost of their time. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited the case of neighbouing state of Andhra Pradesh, which through G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 16.OT.2025, has implemer:.ted a system that provides both grace rrLarks and, a lo/o horizontal reservation for NCC candidates for admission into MBBS/BI)S course. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the camp attendernce , and academic sacrifices made 5y NCC cadets deserves zr guaranteed benefit like a lixed reservai-ion quota and a inconsequential marginal score enhancement by awarding grace marks is not a sufficient incentive to draw students to the NCC.

12. tentions on nt Nos.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that: i) Th.e State has the prerogative to frame and modify the education policies based on changing circumstances, expert opinion and the desired objectivr: to achieve 5 broader goals. The decision to change over from l% reservation award grace marks for attending NCC is a valid exercise of this executive power, which has been done by the State keeping in mind the larger welfare of the students. ii) the grace marks system benefits a larger number of NCC cadets by adding marks to their NEET score, allowing them to compete for all seats, rather than restricting the benefit to a very small number of cadets who can secure limited seats under the Lyo quota of reserved seats. iii) the system of grace marks, verilied by the NCC Directorate, is less prone to misuse compared to a reservation system, where certificate verification and relevant priority may be contentious. iv) the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners do not have a fundamental right to claim a particular mode of incentive, be it reservation or grace marks. The decision is a matter of policy and cannot be called in question, as long as it is not arbitrary or does not violate any constitutional mandate. v) the learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the policy of awarding grace marks as opposed to fix 1%o quota has a rational nexus with the \ \ \ \ I 6 ob.iect of ensuring NCC participation wh:ile maintaining higlh academic standards. The award ,tf grace marks provides boost to a greater number of students also ensuring that the selected candidates mt:ct the primary recuirement of qualifying the NEET UG r:xam, ensuring thc basic academic standards are met, rvhich is not the cas,e in the Iixed i%o quota. vi) the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the new policy is designed to balance the recognition of the NCC service u,ith the principle of meri1. The scheme of grace marks provides a supplemental aclvantage to the sturlents who are the members of NCC sr:rvice, without diluting the overall merit based selection l)rocess, which ma), not be possible in the case of a separate fixed percentage of reserved quota. Analysis and reasoninq:

13. We have carefully considered the pleadings, arguments advanced ,and the relevant G.Os.

14. The fundamental and foremost principle that guides our decision is the limited scope of judicial review in matters of policy formulation. It is well settled that the court does not sit in appeal to examine the wisdom or efficacl, of a policy formulated by the State. The choice between providing a 1 reservation quota or awarding grace marks is a matter of legislative and executive policy, in which the interference of this Court is very limited and restrictive.

15. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the policy of awarding grace marks is manifestly arbitrary or violative of any constitutional or legal provision, and in the absence of the same, this Court must exercise restraint. L6. The petitioners' claim of violation of Article 74 of Constitution on the grounds of arbitrariness on the ground of substitution of policy of 17o reservation with award of grace marks is untenable.

17. The respondents in its counter-affidavit have provided cogent and convincing reasons for shifting the policy from 1%o reservation to the award of grace marks. The objective was to extend the benefit of incentive to a broader base of NCC cadets who qualify in the NEET rather than confining it to small number of students, who might secure the few seats under 17o quota. This objective is apparently legitimate and the method of awarding grace marks appears to be directly and rationally connected to achieving the object of incentivising larger number of students to join NCC. The argument of the petitioners that the award of grace marks is not beneficial, is the matter of \ "} \ \ 8 subjective perception of the petitioners and b' itself, does not render the policy made by the state either arbitr-ary or illegal.

18. Ttre doctrine of legitimate expectation cernnot be invoked to compel the State or its instrumentality to cither create or continuc: in perpetuity the poricy r,r,hich in the subjective perception of individual(s) is beneficial. The lretitioners have no vested legal right to seek the continuation of lol, reservation for NCC cadets in the admission to MBBS/BDS. The state is well with its rights to alter its policies in public interest. The plea of legitimatt: expectation of the petitioners, is the.refore, u,iti-rout any basisr and is rejected.

19. The: petitioners' reliance on G.o.Ms.rrro.44 of the neighbouring State of Andhra pradesh is completely misplaced. The fact that the neighbouring State has chos;cn a different policy model of combining grace marks with ixed quota of reservation does not create any obligation on the State of Telangana to emulate the same. The state is free to make and/or adopt policies suited to its specifir: needs and circumstal:lces. 20 - It is not the case of the petitioners that r.he State has withdrawn all incentives for NCC cadets. The State has merely altered the form of incentive from a reserved perce.etage of seats to a marks-based alternative by anard of grace mar-ks to various // /4 9 categories of students who participated in the NCC. The grace marks system recognises and rewards the achievements of NCC cadets by improving the rank of the NCC cadets in the highly competitive NEET exam of admission to MBBS/BDS. The award of grace marks is a substantial benefit and cannot be termed as illusory or less beneficial. 2L. The revised policy of award of grace marks aligns with the well recognised principle of selecting candidates for professional medical courses, primarily on the basis of merit. The award of t i I t grace marks rightly incentivizes extra-curricular contributions by students who are members of the NCC by enhancing the candidates within the merit list, across all categories, ensuring that the final selection is based on the merit list.

22. For the foregoing reasons, we find no constitutional or legal infirmity in the replacement of G.O.Ms.No.114, dated

05.07.2O17 with G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 04.O7.2023. The policy decision of the State to replace the 1% NCC quota with a system of grace marks is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable or illegal. It is a valid exercise of the executive power and aimed at achieving a broader and more equitable distribution of the benefits amount to all eligible NCC cadets.

23. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs \ \ ' i t l0 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions prending, if any, shall stand closed /TRUE COPY// SD/.S. KARJUNA RAO REGISTRAR To, N OFFICER Telangana. [OUT]

1. One CC to SRt S.SAI K|RAN, Advocate. tOpUCI i.,, 2- Two ccs to GP. FoR HTGHER EDUCATTON, High court for the state of 3. Two ccs to GP for t\4edical, Heatth and Family Wqrlgp Department,, High 4. One CC to Ms.L.pRANATH| REDDY, SC FOR CENTRA.L GOVERNMENT. court for the state of rerangana at Ftvoeraoici ibufl r!'!v"i" IoPUCI I I

5. one cc to sRr r sI4f4\T!, SC for Karoji Narayana Rac University of Hearth 6. Two CD Copies. Sciences, Warangal. tOpUCi BSK LS HIGH COURT DATED t1711112025 ,i;t' : -: //:: i:,' -'). 0 $ [:[ Ifrl 11 t'^ COMMON ORDER WP.No.22049 & 22854 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS