Abotula Brindaraka v. The State of Telangana

iEi,-;tA"-ffir1Ht [EllI" ,* Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRt G.pRAVEEN KUMAR, AGp FOR SPORTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3 , S5'r.;ir,fflllfii The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH I<T'MAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHII]DDIN WRIT PETITION No.26979 OF 2O25 ORDER: Heard Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health for respondent No. 1; Sri G.Praveen Kumar, Assistant Government Pleader for Sports for respondent No.2; Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-University and perused the record.

2. This writ petition is filed by a student and a National Level Fencing player, who has qualified for NEET-UG 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus (i) to declare the inaction of the Kaloji Narayana University of Health Sciences (for short 'KNRUHSJ in considering the email representations of the petitioner dated

15.O1.2025 and 28.08.2025 as illegal; (ii) to declare the debarment of three years and penalty of Rs.2O lakhs imposed as illegai, arbitrary and unconstitutional; (iii) to declare the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in NEET 2O25 Category-A counseiling, and (iv) to extend the beneht of reservation under the Sports Quota as per G.O.Ms.No.l14 (HM&FW) Department, dated 05.O7.2017, with a carry-forward - of the COVID-19 affected years {2O2O-2O211. Factual Matrix

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as chronicled in the petition, are that rhe petitioner qualihed in NEbT-UG 2024 and was aliotted an MBBS seat under the Management euota (Category-B) in the Mop-Up round of counselling for the academic year 2024-25. He failed to join the allotted College. Consequently, uide letter dated 28. 12.2024, the Uoiversity invoked the penalty clause and imposed a penaltlr of Rs.2O lakhs and a three-year debarment from admission to MBBS/BDS courses in the State of Telangana.

4. That the petitioner also qualified in the NEET-UG 2O2S exam but was unable to apply due to the three-year debarment and the penalry of Rs.2O lakhs.

5. That the Government of Teiangana had notified O.5% reservation for sportspersons in MBBS/BDS courses under G.O.Ms.No. 1 14 Department, dated O5.O7.2017.

6. That when the Government of Telangana by G,O.Ms.No.2 dated 22.09 .2020 wanted to withdraw the Sports euota in MBBS/BDS without amending the statutory rules, framed I I -) under G.O.Ms.No. 114 Department, dated 05.07-2017, this Court in W.P.No.38738 of 2O22 quashed the portion of the Government Order withdrawing the Sports Quota and restored the 0.570 reservation. Contentions of the petitionel

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's failure to join MBBS course in the allotted college was due to "financial difftcuities" and lack of proper notice regarding the penalty clause; that the imposition of the penalty is excessively severe, contrary to principles of equity and justice, and the same also infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, arrd 2l of the Constitution of lnd ia. Learned counsel for the petiLioner also contended that

8. despite of the existence of a statutory 0.57o Sports Quota reservation under G.O.Ms.No. 1 14 dated 05.O7.2O 17, which was upheld by this Court in Ranrula laxmi Reddg v. State of Telangana in W.P. No. 38738 of 2022, dated O4.01.2O23, the petitioner claims that respondent No-3-KNRUHS has not provided a functional online mechanism to apply under this Quota in its 2024 or 2025 counselling process, and contends J -- \ '--.1 that this omission effectively denied him his right to be considered for admission under this category. Analysis and Reason lnq

9. This Court in a pervious w.rit petition uideW.p. No.l279T .of 2025, challenging the imposition of the penalty of Rs.20 lakhs and debarment for a period of three years as illegal, rendered its determination upholding the imposition of monetary penalt5z of Rs.20 lakhs and debarment for a period of three years, and this Court affirms the same view in the present matter. Issue of penalty and debarment: 10. It is to be noted that the admission process, governed by G.O.Ms.No. 1 14 dated O5.O7.2017, as amended from time to time, is a structured and transparent mechanism. The amendment uide G.O.Ms.No. 125 dated 22.O9.2022 specifically enhanced the penalty from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.2O lal<hs and explicitly mandated debarment for three years for candidates, who, after being allotted a seat lrom the second phase of counselling onwards, fail to join. This amendment was a conscious policy decision to curb the pernicious practice of "seat blocking," which deprives meritorious candidates of opportunities. Further, the petitioner,s plea of ignorance of this rule is an act of desperation, as the rules and notifications are 5 published in the public domain, and every candidate is expected to participate in the process with due diligence.

11. It is also to be noted that the petitioner's act of accepling a seat in a Mop-Up round and then not joining is'not a mere lapse; it is an act that has a cascading effect, as the said act blocks a seat that could have been allotted to another deserving and waiting candidate, and theretry disrupts the entire admission schedule, and ultimately benehts private managements by allowing seats to be converted.

12. Further, the enhanced penalty of Rs.2O lakhs is intended to be prohibitive, ensuring that candidates do not treat seat allotment as a casual option to be accepted or rejected at will. The contention of the petitioner of financial hardship, while evoking sympathy, cannot be a ground to scrap away a rule designed for the larger public good.

13. It is trite law, settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, that the process of admissions to professional medical courses is not a matter of private contract between an individual and an institution. It is a highly regulated state activiff conducted in the nature of a trust for the benefit of all eligibie candidates. The timeline for each phase of counselling from the first round to the Mop-Up round is 6 sacrosanct. The entire competitive process is built on the bedrock of certaint5r, fairness and estimation of subjective discretion. Any relaxation/deviation for one candidate, however genuine his reason may seem, or even if motivated by sympathy, have a cascading effect, jeopardizing the chances of other .would candidates waiting in the queue and undermining the finality of the process thereby compromising the integrity of the system. Reference can be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medical Council oJ Indirr a. Madhu Singht regarding the importance of adhering to schedules in academic matters.

14. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Md. Rizuan Arfath and others o. State of Telangana and. others in W.P. No. 4Ol 16 of 2022 and batch, dated 16.11.2022 to contend that the imposition of penalty of Rs.2O lakhs is illegal, it is to be noted that the core reasoning in said judgment was the failure of the University to produce the bonds allegedly executed by the students. The Court held that in the absence of the foundational document i.e., the bond, the penalty could not be enforced. However, in the present case, the penalt5r is not being enforced based on a bond but is a statutory consequence flowing directly from the amended rules ' lzooz; z scc z:t 1 in G.O.Ms.No. 125. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment, which was rendered in a different factual context and circumstalces, is not applicable to the facts of the case and does not advance the case of the petitioner.

15. A law or rule is not arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, if it is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The classification here is between candidates who comply with the reporting conditions to join the MBBS/ BDS course on allotment of a seat and those who do not. This classilication is intelligible 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 cannot be said to suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.

16. In regard to the petitioner's challenge against the severity of the penalty of debarment for a period of three years, it is to be noted that, the Doctrine of Proportionality requires the Court to examine whether the restriction imposed by a rule is disproportionate to the object it seeks to achieve. The object here is crysta1 clear: to deter candidates from accepting a seat without a hrm intention to join, thereby blocking a seat that could have gone to another candidate. "Seat blocking" is a 8 -- serious menace that disrupts the entire allocation process and is detrimental to the larger student community. The penalry of debarment for three years, though severe, is a calibrated response to this persistent problem. It is intended to impress upon candidates the gravity of the commitment they make when they consciously exercise their web options. It is not a punitive measure in isolation but a protective measure for the system as a whole. The increase in the monetary penatty to Rs.2O lakhs by the 2022 amendment underscores the seriousness rvith which the legislature views this issue. We find the penalty to be proportionate to the legitimate aim it seeks to achieve. Issue in regard to the implementation of Sports Quota as per G.O.Ms.No. 1 14 dated O5.O7.2OL7 :

17. The penalty of debarment of three years having been upheld by this Court, the question of implementation of Sports Quota reservation to the candidates for admission to MBBS and BDS courses for the year academic year 2025-2026, has been rendered academic in view of the fact that the petitioner has already been debarred for a period of three academic years uide letter dated'2a.12.2024.

18. Further, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's plea to "carry forward" the years 2O2O ar:d 2O2l on account of the =---' 9 COVID-19 lockdown is a policy matter beyond its jurisdiction, as it is not within this Court's domain to prescribe any specific "carry-forward" formula. Further, the petitioner's comparison of the Sports Quota with Army or Physically Handicapped Quota's is mispiaced, as the nature and eligibility criteria of these Quotas are fundamentally distinct. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. Conclusion

19. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the action of the respondents in imposing a penalty of Rs.20 lakhs and debarring the petitioner for three years is neither illegal and arbitrary nor unconstitutional. It is a valid application of a rule designed to preserve the sanctit5r of a high-stakes admission process. 20- We also hold that this Court cannot direct the respondents to implement the Sports Quota for the academic year 2025' 2026 by carrying forward the COVID- 19 affected years (2021- 2022). Therefore, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. l0 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. /iTRUE COPY// SD/. B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REPISTRAR SECTIO€FFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI NAtvlBl KRISHNA, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI T.SHARATH, SC for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, Warangal. tOPUCI

5. Two CD Copies. BSK TKS P HIGH COURT DATED:06110t2025 ( o O f iE r i,1 28 BII ?nr k /);:.'r'rj^'f',1'ii ORDER WP.No.26979 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS A .tN