The court reaffirmed that eligibility for local candidate status must adhere strictly to defined rules, which cannot be overridden by perceived equity.

ORDER:

Heard Sri E.Sreenivas Rao, learned counsel representing Sri A.Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri T.Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for respondent No.1; and 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:-

“…..(a). Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Provisional Merit List dated 12.09.2025 and the Final Merit List dated 15.09.2025, to the extent of excluding the petitioner from consideration under the local candidate category, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India ;

(b). Hold and declare that in view of Rule 3(ii) & (iii), the petitioner, having resided in Telangana since 2020, completed Intermediate in Telangana in 2022, and appeared for NEET-UG 2025 in Telangana, is entitled to be treated as a local candidate under the Competent Authority Quota;

(c). Direct the respondents to forthwith include the petitioner's name in the Final Merit List under the local candidate category for MBBS/BDS admissions for the academic year 2025-26 and permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling process;

(d). Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity.”

3. The petitioner assails the exclusion of her name from the Provisional Merit List dated 12.09.2025 and the Final Merit List dated 15.09.2025 for admission into MBBS/BDS courses under the Competent Authority Quota for the academic year 2025-26. The core grievance of the petitioner is her non-inclusion in the "local candidate" category.

4. The facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, born and purportedly a permanent resident of Telangana, studied from Class I to VIII (academic years: 2010-2018) in Telangana. The petitioner thereafter studied Classes IX and X (academic years: 2018-2020) in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner returned to Telangana to complete her Intermediate (Class XI and XII) in the academic years 2020-2022. The petitioner appeared for the NEET-UG 2025 examination in Telangana and upon being qualified in the NEET-UG 2025, sought admission under the ‘competent authority quota’.

5. The respondents by applying Rule 3(a) of the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33 dated 19.07.2024 (hereinafter "the Rules"), did not classify her as a local candidate. The petitioner's representations to the University were implicitly rejected, leading to the filing of this petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have adopted a rigid and erroneous interpretation of Rule 3(a) by considering only Clause (i) and ignoring Clauses (ii) and (iii). He contends that the petitioner, having resided continuously in Telangana since 2020, completed her Intermediate in Telangana in 2022, and appeared for NEET-UG 2025 in Telangana, squarely falls under the alternative criteria provided in Rule 3(a)(ii) and (iii). It is argued that this fulfils the "spirit" of the Rule and would provide a “purposive interpretation” to the Rule, which is to establish a genuine and continuous nexus with the State.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2, supported the impugned decision by relying on the Prospectus and the amended Rules. The learned couns