IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, T.VINOD KUMAR, JJ.
P.Lokasvi and others. - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.18674, 22062, 22083 and 22182 of 2023
Decided on : 11-09-2023
LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION - ADMISSION TO MBBS/BDS COURSES - 2017 RULES
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, aspirants seeking admission to MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2023-2024, challenged the validity of an amendment to the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, which excluded NCC 'A' and 'C' certificate holders from reservation and provided grace marks only to NCC 'B' certificate holders. The petitioners argued that the amendment was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation did not apply to the amendment as it was a legislative act. The court also found that the amendment did not violate Article 14 as it was based on a rational classification and was a matter of policy.
Issues: The issues considered by the court included the applicability of legitimate expectation, alteration of rules midway, violation of Article 14, the matter of policy in prescribing reservation or grace marks, and the effect of the amendment on a non-existent rule.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the doctrine of legitimate expectation did not apply to legislative acts and that the amendment did not violate Article 14 as it was based on a rational classification. The court also held that the matter of prescribing reservation or grace marks was a policy decision and did not warrant judicial interference.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court found no merit in the petitioners' claims.
ORDER:
ALOK ARADHE, J.
The petitioners hold NCC ‘A’ category certificate. In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners who are aspirants seeking admission to MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2023-2024 assail the validity of Rule 4(iii)(a) of the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 2017 Rules”). For facility of reference, facts of W.P.No.18674 of 2023 are being referred.
(i) FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Government of Telangana in exercise of powers under Section 3 read with Section 15(1) of the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, has framed the 2017 Rules. The said Rules govern admission to MBBS and BDS courses in the State of Telangana.
3. The petitioner No.2 secured the NCC-A certificate in August, 2019, whereas petitioner No.1 secured NCC-A certificate on 17.08.2021.
4. The National Testing Agency (NTA) issued a notification dated 06.03.2023 for conducting the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), which was conducted on 07.05.2023. The petitioners appeared in the said examination. The result of examination was declared on 13.06.2023. The petitioners qualified for admission into MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2023-2024.
5. The Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 04.07.2023, amended the 2017 Rules and substituted the enabling provision prescribing 1% reservation for National Cadet Corps (NCC) candidates by making a provision for grant of grace marks for certain categories of candidates holding ‘B’ category certificate and excluded students having NCC ‘A’ and ‘C’ certificates. In the aforesaid factual background, these writ petitions have been filed.
(ii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the NEET examination was held on 07.05.2023 and the result of the examination was declared on 13.06.2023. Thereafter, on 04.07.2023, the 2017 Rules have been amended by the State Government. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioners had legitimate expectation that reservation would be provided to them as they hold NCC-A certificate. However, contrary to the legitimate expectation of the petitioners, the 2017 Rules have been amended. It is further contended that the amendment seeks to provide grace marks only to three categories of persons who hold NCC ‘B’ certificate out of several categories of NCC quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 08.09.2015. It is argued that there is no rational nexus between the rules and the object sought to be achieved. It is, therefore, contended that the amendment to the 2017 Rules is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7. It is urged that amendment to the 2017 Rules seeks to alter the position existing as on the date of notifying the entrance examination, which is not permissible in law. It is urged that the amendment to the 2017 Rules has the effect of reducing the number of seats available under NCC quota which would have otherwise been available, if earlier provision prescribing 1% reservation was followed. It is pointed out that the amendment to the 2017 Rules is vague inasmuch as it seeks to amend “Rule 4” of G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.2017, which does not exist in the 2017 Rules. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S.Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679, State of Tamil Nadu v. National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association, (2021) 15 SCC 534 and Sivanandan C.T v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 SCC Online SC 994.
(iii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE:
8. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the facts of the case and in view of the fact that the 2017 Rules have been amended in exercis
Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S.Jagannathan
Cantonment Board v. Jagat Pal Singh Cheema
K.R. Lakshman v. Karnataka Electricity Board
Madras City Wine Merchants’ Association v. State of Tamil Nadu
Pawan Alloys and Casting (P) Ltd. v. U.P. SEB [(1997) 7 SCC 251 : AIR 1997 SC 3910]
P.Suseela v. University Grants Commission
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R.Tendolkar
S.Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Shrijee Sales Corpn. v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 398]
The court established that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to legislative acts and that policy decisions, such as prescribing reservation or grace marks, are generally not subje....
The court upheld the State's right to modify educational policies, emphasizing limited judicial review in such matters, and found no arbitrariness in replacing a reservation system with a grace marks....
Point of law : It is a consistent law right from the very inception that Courts in the rarest of rare case can grant interim protection in the admission matters, when they are convinced that no injus....
The court affirmed the validity of amended rules limiting eligibility under the ‘Competent Authority Quota,’ which were not legally contested by the petitioner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.