The High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus ...RESPONDENTS (a) Declare Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS courses) Rules, ?017 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No. 33 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department dated 1910712024 as being illegal, unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, with malafide intention to over-rute the judgments of this Honourable Court (b) Declare the Petitioner as locat candidate for all purposes of admission into MBBS/BDS pursuant to NEET (UG) 2025 for MBBS/BDS Admissions under competent Authority euota-202s-26 under aegis of Respondent No.2 (c) Consequently, to direct Respondent No.2 to treat the Petitioner as Local Candidate pursuant to NEET (UG) 2025 for MBBS/BDS Admissions under competent Authority Quota-2025-26 under aegis of Respondent No.2. 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 Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 as amended vide G.O. Ms. No. 33 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (Cl) Department dated 1gtolt2O24. 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 Respondents to treat the Petitioner as local candidates and process the Applications of the Petitioner for online Registration for MBBS/BDS course admissions under Competent Authority Quota-2025-26 under aegis of Respondent No.2 without relying or insisting upon 4-year consecutive study/residence in the state of Telangana for the purpose of being treated as a local candidate. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI R. NAGARJUNA REDDY, AGP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH AND FAMTLY 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 'f.) @ WRIT PETITION No. 22699 of 2O25 ORDER: Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the . petitioner, Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for respondent No.1, Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record-

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:- ".....to issue an appropiate writ, order or direction, more partianlarlg in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: a) Declare Rule 3(a) of Telarugana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 as amended uide G.O.Ms.No. 33 Health, Medical and Familg Welfare (C1) Department dated 19.07.2024 as being illegal, unconstitutional, manifestlg arbitrary, with malafide intention.to ouer'nile the judgments of thi"s Hon'ble Court; b) Declare the Petitioner as local candidate for all puryoses of admission into MBBS/.BDS pursuant to NEET (UG) 2O25 for MBBS/BDS Admissions under Competent Authoritg Quota- 2025-26 under aegis of Respondent No.2; c) Conseqtently, to direct Respondent No.2 to treat th.e Petitioner os Local Candidate pursuant to NEET (UG) 2025 for MBBS/BDS Admissions under Competent Auttnritg Quota-2o25-26 under aegis of Respondent No.2.d) Pa.ss such other order or orders a.s this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in tlrc interest of justice." A. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was born in Telanganbqn 23.08€005 and completed 2 her Class II to VI at Achampet Mandal, Nagarkurnool district, in Telangana State. However, pursued her Class VIII to Class X at Kittur in the State of Andhra Pradesh and she returned to Telangana to complete her Intermediate i.e., Class XI and XII. Subsequently, after she was qualified NEET (UG)-2O25 she sought admission under the 'Competent Authority Quota'which is reserved for local candidates.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the underlying writ petition contends as follows: i. ii. that an application for admission into MBBS/BDS courses was made to the respondent No.2-University for the academic year 2025-26 and accordingly respondent No. 2 issued the admission prospectus which were issued pursuant to the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2Ol7 (for short 'Rules 2Ol7') as amended by G.O. Ms. No. 33, dated l9.OT .2024 and released a notification dated 16.07.2025 for online registration for the said courses, wherein the prospectus, mandated compulsory submission of a residence certificate as per Annexure-Il, stipulating four years of continuous study or residence in Telangana prior to the qualifying examination. that the said requirement contradicts and violates the binding directions of this Court in order dated O5.O9.2024 in W.P. No. 21910 of 2024 and Batch and in order dated 2g.O8.2O23 W.P.N o.2L268 of 2023 and Batch wherein this court has held that a residence certilicate is sufficient for categorization as a local candidate. TI" ,'-) 3 that the said the Regulations were framed in pursuant to Rule.3(a) of Rules 2OLT as amended uid.e G.O.Ms. No.33 dated 19.07.2024, as framed under the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983. that as per regulation 2.2 of the prospectus, he is treated as non-local even though he is permanent resident of Telangana State which is violative of orders of the passed in W.P. No. 2L9lO of 2024 and Batch and in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and Batch.

5. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged

6. It is pertinent to note that though the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended and relied on the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.2L268 of 2023 and batch, dated 29.08.2023 and in W.P.No.2191O of 2024 and batch, dated 05.09.2024, wherein it was held the previous incarnation of 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 unequivocal and does not- support the petitioner's case, as the aforesaid judgments which have been relied by the learned counsel for petitioner were stayed by the Hon'lrle Supreme court uide order dated 2o.o9.2o24 in sl.p(c) Nos.21536-21588 of 2924- Further, the learned counsel's ;t"; 4 assertion that the SLP'. were dismissed thereby upholding the view taken by this Court is factually incorrect'

7. The Honble Supreme Court in Sto:te of Telangana qnd oth.ers a. Kalluri Naga No,rq.simtl'c Abhiram and othersl while setting aside the impugrled judgment dated 29.08.2023 of this Court, has categorically held as under:

37. For att the rea.sons notired aboue, u)e are unable to uphotd. the impugned ju1\gment dated 29.08.2023 of the High Court of Telangana. 33- We haue alread.g held *Lat the pre-amended ntle defining a local candidate was perfectlg in ,.otoning applies sqtarelg to ttrc amended rule aLso' There was no taarrqnt foi a ,"idinq doun ulrcn the definition is clear, in consonaice uith the-Presidential Order and similar rules hauing been upheld by this Court as coming out from the binding-precedeits. We find no redson to take a different uieut with ispect to the aminded rule aLso; 75o/o hauing been corrceded to th.e All-India Etota. -order,

34. We also obserue that the learned Aduomte General has hnnd"ed. ouer a further am.endment proposed, incorporating a prouiso to Rule 3 a.s follouts:- I. Prouided. thqt a candidate utho studies outside Telangana for ang period. during the reqi.site four conseantiue academic Aears-ending uith tte acadZmic gear in uhich h'e appeared, or a.s the Lase maA be, first appe-ared .in the .releuant qtatifgihg examinati\n uill- be eligible to be considered if theg fatl under ang of tlrc belout categories: 1- Children of employees of t?E Telangana State Gouernment *iro tir. serued or are seruing outside Telangana anesponding to tle candidate's gear/s of shtdg outside Telangana.

2. Chitd"ren of seruing or retired emplogees ?:l-":y:ry-to the India Seruices (IAS/IFS/IPS) tttho Telangana cadre lnue serued" oi are seruing outside Telangana corresponding to the candidate's year/ s of shtdy outside Telangana "f-aU ' 2025 scc online sc 1880 ') 5

3. Children of defene personnel/ex_seruicemen/Central Armed Police Force seruice who at th.e time of jointng sertice, haue declared th-eir hametoutn to be in thi state of Telangana and utln haue serued. or are seruing outsid.e Telangana erresponding to the candid.ate,s iear/s of strtdg outside Telang ana. Children of emplogees of

4. a corporation/ Agency/ In strumentariiy ind.er Goueiment of Telangana, liable to be transferrei anyuhere in iniro o, per th.e terms and conditions of his/h; emplogment, utho haue serued or are seruing outsid.e Telangana @rrespondtng to the candidate,s gear/s of study outside Telangana - fi. subject to tlle candidate submitting certificate of loyl"goont from the competent qutharitg fir th.e dndid.ate,s fath-er/mother's seruice outside the stit. for the period. corresponding to th.e candidate,s gear/s o/ studg outside Telangana

36. The appeab of the state and. the rJniuersity are ailowed, settirLg aside both the impugned. judgments in the writ Petitions fited bg th.e stud.ents. The writ petitions and the sLp filed bg the studenk before thb court, as a cotlsequence stand di,smissed; lwweuer, with the reseruation insofar as candidates uha are couered bg the prouiso to R.tre 3 as speeifted in paragraph 34 aboue. No ord.er as fo costs. Therefore, the legal position enunciated in w.p.No.2 126g of 2023 and batch, dated 29.09.2023 and. in w.p.No.2191o of 2024 and batch, dated o5.09.2o24, was suspended in the light of the decision of the Hon'rrre supreme court in r{alluri Naga Nqrqsimhq. Abhircm's case (supra 1) and, cannot be relied upon as a binding precedent. Further it is not the case of the petitioner that she fall within the proviso to the Rule 3 of the Rules 2017.

8. It is pertinent to note that the requirement of four consecutive years of st{y or residence is a conscious policy \ \ 6 choice made by the State and has been designed to create a rational and verifiable classification to identiff 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 delined class' Therefore, there is no violation of Article L4 of the Constitution' as the classification is founded on an intelligible distinction and bears a rational nexus to the legislative objective of regulating admissions. g. It is settled in law that the State possesses the authority to prescribe objective, quantifiable, and rational criteria for determining the status of a 'local area'candidate for the purpose of admission to ed.ucational institutions, and such status does not constitute an absolute right vested in every permanent resident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradeep Jo;ln o. Anion of India2, has held as under:

79. It witt be noticed from the aboue di.sanssion that tlnugh intra-State di.scimination bettaeen persons resident in different d.i.stricts or regions of a State ha.s bg and large been frowned. upon bg tlrc Court and struck down as inualid as in Minor P. Rajendran ca.se IAIR 1968 SC 1012 : (1968) 2 SCR , (1984) 3 SCC 6s4 i ! I\ trr _. ,1 7 7g6 : (1968) 2 sc-l 8oLl and Peeria-kantppan ca.se'[(1971) 1 scc 38 : NR 1971 SC 2303 : (1971) 2 SCR 4301 the Coufi hns in D.N. ctwnchala case [(1971) 2 SCC 293 : AIR 1971 SC 1762 : 1g71 supp scR 608l and other similar ca.ses upheld institgtional reseraation effected through uniuersitg wise distibution of seats for admission to medical colleges. The Court has abo by its decisions in D.P. Joshi case IAIR ] 955 SC 334 : (1955) / SCR 1215 : 1955 SCJ 2981 and N' Vasundara case [(1971) 2 SCC 22 : AIR 1971 SC 1439 : 1971 Supp SCR 3g1l sustained tlrc anstitttttonal ualiditg of reseruation based on residene reqtirement uithin a State for ttrc purpose of admission to medical colleges. These decisians uhich all relate tu admission to MBBS course are bindirry upon us and it i.s therefore not possible for us to hold, in the face of th.ese d.ecisions, that residence requirement in a State for admission b MBBS course i,s irrational and irreleuant and cannot be introduced. as a condition for admi"ssion uithout uiolating the mandate of eqtalitg of opporhtnitg contained in Article 14. We It ls gilllitIe ariftfiF? fthat to all sure whether at the present stage it ba.sls'. We are not at uith the mandate of equalitg in its uould be con'si'stent broader dgnamic sense to prouide thnt admissions to the MBBS course in all medical colleges in the auntry shauld be on all-India basi,s. Tleoreticallg, of course, if odmissions are anould. not tif.. I I \r _, 8 (' experienced. bu students from one reoion utlrc miaht in thc comoetitlon on all'India ba,sis aet admlssion to the MBBS course in anotttrr reaion far temote ftom their oun and other allied factors. Tlrcre can be no doubt that the policg of ensuing admissions to tLrc MBBS course on all- India basis is a highlg desirable policg, based as it fs on tLrc posfitlate that India is one nation and euery citi.zen of India i"s entitled to haue equal opportunity for education and aduancement, but it i.s an ideal to be aimed at'arud it mag not be realistically possible, in tlrc present circum.starlces, to adopt it, for it cannot produ,ce real equalitg of opportunitg unless there is complete absence of disparities and inequalities - a situation which simplg does not exist in the country today. There are massiue social and economic dbpaities and inequalities not onlg behteen State and State but also between region and region uithin a State and euen betuteen citizens a.nd citiz,ens uithin the same region. Tlere b a yautning gop befipeen the rich and the poor and th.ere are so manA di.sabilities and injustices from which tlrc poor s{fer as a class that theg cannoi auail them.selues of ang opportunities which may in laut be open to tlrcm. Theg do not haue the social and material resources to talce aduantage of these opportunities which remain merely on paper remgnised by laut but non- existent in fact. Students from baclcutard States or regions will twrdly be able to compete uith those from aduanced States or regions because, though possessing an intelligent mind, theg would haue had no adequate opportunities for deuelopment so a.s to be in a position to ampete with otters. So also sfiidents belonging to the weaker sections who hnue not, by reason of their sociallg or economicallg disaduantaged position, been able to secure education in good schools utould be at a discldzaitage compared. to stud.ents belonging to the affluent or well-to-do families who haue lwd the best of sclwol education and in open all-India ampetition, tleg uould be lil<elg to be worsted. There would also be a number of students who, if theg do not get admission in a m.edical college near their residence and are assigned admission in a far off college in another State as a result of open all-India ampetition, maA not be able to go to such otlrcr college on account of lack of resources and facilities qnd in tle result, th.eg woutd be effediuelg depiued of a real opporhtnitg for pursuing the medical course euen ttaugh on paper theg uould haue got admi"ssion in a medical allege. It would be tantamount to telling these students ttnt theg are giuen an opportttnitg of taking up tlrc medical cottrse, but if theg cannot afford it by to uthich theg are admitted being reason of the medical 9 far awag in another State, it is tleir bad luck: ttrc State cqnnot lrclp it, because the State hns done atl tlnt it could, namelg, prouide eqtal oPPortunitg to atl for medical education. But th.e qtestion rb uthether the opportunity prouided tb real or illusory? W. ,re tlwrcfore of tlrc ui.ew that a certain in order to ott t tc basis admission Tlrc percentage of reseruation mad"e on thb count mag also include in"stitutional reseruation for students passirq the PUC or pre-ffLedical examination of tle sam.e uniuersitg or clearing tlrc qualifying examination from the schaol sgstem of the educational hinterland of the medical colleges in t?rc State and for thi"s pufpose, there should be no distinction bettaeen schools 'ffiiot"a to State Board and schools alfiliated to the Central gl"ra of Seanlary Education. It unuld be consttttttionallu permissible to Proaide. as an ln;terir,ln nrr;asure until tE no"h thc stdoe uthcn we co;n consistcntlu utith the b*od of the nilc of equalitu in the lf,rrer sense. ffiate en'rtre aclmisslotts to tlv MBBS course on the bdsis of alr'r"" ur^lrn;oltiorn - an ideal uhich we must notirnol "nt stiue to reach -, for .reseruation of a certain percentage of seats in the m.edical colleges for sfitdents -in"r"r"inglg sati.sfuing a prescribed residence reqtirem.ent as al.so for students ulw haue possed PUC or pre-medical examination or ang other quatifuing examination h.eld. bg the uniuersitg or the Stite and. for thi.s purpose it strcul.d. malce no difference uhether the qtalifging examination b conducted bg the State Board. or bg the central Board of secondary Mucation, because no discimination can be made betuteen schools affiliated'to the State Board and schools alfiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education""' (empha.sis supplied)

10. It is pertinent to note tJ:at in the absence of any pleadings or evidence demonstrating compliance with the prescribed alternative objective criteria, the petitioner cannot claim any legitimate expectation or right to'te'-recognized as a local candidate. The State is entitled to establish objective and verifiable standards to ascertain .esiden!'l Th.,", the 10 6 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-Il) 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 the prescribed mandatory format and thus, was rightly rejected by the respondent No.2-University.

12. In light of the judgment of the Honble.Supreme Court in Kalluri Naga Narq.sitnha Abhirann's case (supra 1), the petitioner's case that she must be treated as a local candidate is legaily untenable, as being failed to satisfy the stipulated criteria. Consequently, we find no merit in the writ petition and the challenge to the vires of Rule 3(a) of the Rules 2Ol7 fails.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ! i;l il; !Ii ;i! ,, consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. S D'.8. REKHA RANI REGI /TRUE COPY/' ECTION OFFICER To

1. One CC to SRI ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY' 2.TwoCCstoGPforMedical'.HealthandFamilyWelfare'High silie oirelangani at Hyderabad' [oUT]

3. One CC to SRI T. SU|RATH, S'C' for Kaloji Narayana Rao Health Sciences IOPUC] Court for the UniversitY of

4. Two CD CoPies MP BS \ \ HIGH COURT DATED i1910912025 HE SIA 't ! () C) * 19JA}l 2026 i F Dtr WP.No.2269g of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?)mrrr -iiini,s.