Sanikommu Venkata Sai Bharath Reddy vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 637

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, JJ.
Sanikommu Venkata Sai Bharath Reddy and others – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.Nos.18047, 18216, 19210, 20676, 20880, 21008, 23100, 23101, 23102, 23103, 23104, 23105, 23106, 23107, 23108, 23109, 23110, 23112, 23198, 23199, 23200, 23267, 23361, 23362, 23363, 23364, 23369, 23374, 23378, 23382, 23390, 23412, 23444, 23454, 23472, 23487, 23509, 23511, 23513, 23617, 23631, 23667, 23679, 23719, 23734, 23772, 23774, 23825, 23840, 23859, 23894, 23908, 24052, 24062, 24066, 24121, 24122, 24128, 24179, 24190, 24285, 24372, 24379, 24461, 24491, 24746, 24755, 24798, 24825 and 24826 of 2023
Decided on : 11-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Anup Koushik Karavadi, Mr. P.Thirumala Rao, Ms. I.Mamu Vani, Mr. Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Mr. Srinivasa Srikanth, Mr. Rajagopallavan Tayi, Mr. S.V.Ramana, Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Ms. Y.Ratna Prabha, Mr.Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, Mr. Palle Nageswar Rao, Mr. R.Yella Reddy, Mr. Basa Chanakya, Mr. Anirudh Sadhu, Mr.B.Srinarayana, Mr. C.M.R.Velu, Mr. Rama Rao Kochiri, Ms. S.Madhavi, Mr. Sk. Fakruddin Ali, Mr. P.Vengala Reddy, Mr. P.Shravan Kumar Goud, Mr. Satyanarayana Dharmapuri, Ms. G.Shilpa, Mr. Ch.Venkat Raman, Mr. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla and Mr. A.Durga Bhaskar
For the Respondents: Mr. B.S.Prasad, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, Mr. N.Praveen Kumar, Mr. S.Vijay Prashanth, Ms. Gorantla Sri Ranga Pujitha, Mr. P.Govind Reddy, Mr. C.Appaiah Sharma

Headnote:(A) National Medical Commission Act, 2019; Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983; Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 16, 35, 371D; Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014; Presidential Order, 1974 - Writ petitions challenging amendments to 2017 admission rules, specifically G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 03.07.2023, providing 100% reservation for local candidates in new institutions - Petitioners’ fundamental rights claimed to be violated and question of legislative competence raised. (Paras 1, 5, 21)

(B) Legality of Amendments - State legislature's authority to amend admission rules affirmed as supported by sections of the 1983 Act and constitutional provisions, maintaining the 85% reservation rule while leaving 15% for outside candidates. (Paras 23, 52)

(C) Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Petitioners failed to establish expectation regarding non-local admissions since the amendment aligns with legal provisions asserting reservation for local candidates in institutions established post-formation of Telangana. (Paras 21, 46, 49)

(D) Implication of Prior Supreme Court Judgments - The amendment found to not contravene established precedents, recognizing State's special status under Article 371D and legislative authority to establish local admissions policies. (Paras 57, 60) (E) Result - Writ petitions dismissed, ruling confirms State's amendment validity and 100% local reservation does not apply; opportunities remain for other states under All India quota pursuant to amended rules. (Paras 62, 63)

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek admission under new rules. (Para 1 , 2)
2. amendment violates fundamental rights. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
3. state's reservation complies with law. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court addresses crucial legal considerations. (Para 20 , 21)
5. amendment legality tied to state reservation power. (Para 39 , 52)
6. writ petitions dismissed. (Para 63)

ORDER:

ALOK ARADHE, J.

The petitioners are local candidates of State of Andhra Pradesh and are aspirants seeking admission to MBBS/BDS Courses in the State of Telangana under the non-local category. In these petitions, the petitioners have impugned the validity of Rules (3)(II)(d), (e) (h) and Rule (3)(III)(a) which have been substituted vide G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 03.07.2023, in Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2017 Rules’). In order to appreciate petitioners’ grievance, reference to few facts is necessary which are stated infra.

(i) FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. The Parliament enacted National Medical Commission Act, 2019. Under the Act, National Medical Council was constituted with effect from 25.09.1990. The National Testing Agency (NTA) issued a notification on 06.03.2023. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification, the petitioners as well as other candidates submitted their applications between 6th March, 2023 and 6th April, 2023 for appearing in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test undergraduate examination (hereinafter referred to as ‘NEET UG’). NEET UG examination was held on 07.05.2023. The results of the said examination were declared on 13.06.2023. Thereafter, the Rules were amended on 03.07.2023 by which 100% reservation has been provided in respect of 85% of competent authority quota seats in favour of local candidates in educational institutions established after 02.06.2014 i.e., the date of formation of State of Telangana. Thereafter, the University issued notification on 06.07.2023 inviting online applications for admission to MBBS/BDS courses in the State of Telangana.

3. In the aforesaid factual background, the challenge has been made to validity of Rules (3)(II) (d), (e), (h) and Rule (3)(III)(a) of the 2017 Rules which have been substituted, vide G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 03.07.2023.

(ii) ORDER OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT:

4. It is relevant to mention herein that some of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which was registered as W.P (Civil) No.916 of 2023. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 31.08.2023. The said order reads as under:

2. Learned counsels have not satisfied us as to the reason for filing the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the writ involving similar questions are pending before the High Court.

3. Learned counsels state that there is urgency in the matter. If that be so, we see no reason why the High Court would not take up the matter expeditiously to pass interim orders if the Court considers it appropriate and in accordance with law.

4. The writ petition and the applications for intervention/impleadment and direction are, accordingly, dismissed.

5. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

(iii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.18216, 24746, 24755, 24798, 24825 and 24826 of 2023 has submitted that the 2017 Rules have been enacted under Sections 3 and 15 of the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1983 Act’). It is further submitted that the amendment to the 2017 Rules results in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of