The ruling clarifies the interpretation of local candidate criteria for NEET admissions under revised regulations in compliance with constitutional provisions.

ORDER :

Sri J. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri J. Venkat Sai; Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri A. Divakar Reddy; K. Kiran Kumar; Sri Abdul Kabeer, learned counsel representing Sri L. Ram Singh; Sri K. Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri I.V. Radhakrishna Murthy; Sri T.B.B. Krishna Mohan; Sri G. Vinay, learned counsel representing Sri M.R.S.Srinivas; Sri Syed Rizwan, learned counsel representing Sri Uzair Ahmed Khan; learned counsel appears for the petitioners.

Sri Tandra Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department.

Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel appears for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as, “the University”),

2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged notification dated 15.07.2025 issued by the University, whereby the criteria for treating them as local candidates for the purposes of admission to NEET (UG) 2025 examination for MBBS/BDS courses in Telangana has been prescribed as per Rule 3a of theTelangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses Rules 2017 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19/07/2024 issued by Respondent No.1.

3. The learned Division Bench of this Court read down Rule 3(III)(B) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (for short, “the 2017 Rules”) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024 vide judgment rendered on 29.08.2023 in batch of writ petitions vide W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch. The relevant paragraph reads as under:

“91. We have already held that Rule 3(III)(B) of 2017 Rules is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . An interpretation which advances the object and purpose of the Act has to be preferred. The object of Rule 3(III)(C) of 2017 Rules is to provide reservation for local candidates. In case the rule is struck down then students from all over the country shall be entitled to admission in medical colleges. Therefore, instead of striking down Rule 3(III)(B) of 2017 Rules, it needs to be read down. Therefore, we read down Rule 3(III)(B) of 2017 Rules and it is held that the aforesaid Rule shall not apply to permanent residents of the State of Telangana. Thus, by reading down the provision in the manner indicated above shall also be in consonance of object of Article 371D (2)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of India i.e., of making special provision to the people of different parts of State for admission to educational institutions. Therefore, the validity of Rule 3(III)(B) of 2017 Rules is upheld as interpreted by us. Accordingly, the issue (viii) is answered.”

The learned Division Bench interpreted 3(a) of the 2017 Rules, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, to mean that the petitioners therein shall be eligible to admission in the medical colleges in the State of Telangana, if their domicile is of State of Telangana or if they are permanent residents of the State of Telangana vide its judgment dated 05.09.2024 in W.P.No.21910 of 2024 and batch. The relevant paragraph reads as under:

“87. For the aforementioned reasons, we direct that Rule 3(a) of the 2017 Rules, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, will be interpreted to mean that the petitioners shall be eligible to admission in the medical colleges in the State of Telangana, if their domicile is of State of Telangana or if they are permanent residents of the State of Telangana. It is stated at the bar that there are no guidelines/rules framed by the State Government to ascertain whether a student is a domicile/permanent resident of the State of Telangana. We, therefore, grant the liberty to the Government to frame the guidelines/rules to determine as to when a student can be considered