THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.22127 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Mr. R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department appearing for respondent No.2 and Ms. Ishrath Begum, learned counsel representing Mr. T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as, “the University”) appearing for respondent No.7.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner herein humbly prays the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus to set-a-side the Grance marks given to the National Cadet Corps (NCC) students as per GO.Ms. No.75, dated 04.07.2023 by implementing the previous 1% Reservation in the place of GO.Ms.No.114 of dated 05.07.2017, into notification issued by the KNR University of Health and Science for admission into MBBS & BDS through NEET Examination notification dated 15.07.2025 and pass such other order or orders the interest of justice.”

3. Today, at the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents are in consensus that the matter can be disposed of in the lines of common order dated 17.11.2025, passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.22049 and 22854 of 2025, where similar issue was involved. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

“Analysis and reasoning:

13. We have carefully considered the pleadings, arguments advanced and the relevant G.Os.

14. The fundamental and foremost principle that guides our decision is the limited scope of judicial review in matters of policy formulation. It is well settled that the Court does not sit in appeal to examine the wisdom or efficacy of a policy formulated by the State. The choice between providing a reservation quota or awarding grace marks is a matter of legislative and executive policy, in which the interference of this Court is very limited and restrictive.

15. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the policy of awarding grace marks is manifestly arbitrary or violative of any constitutional or legal provision, and in the absence of the same, this Court must exercise restraint.

16. The petitioners’ claim of violation of Article 14 of Constitution on the grounds of arbitrariness on the ground of substitution of policy of 1% reservation with award of grace marks is untenable.

17. The respondents in its counter-affidavit have provided cogent and convincing reasons for shifting the policy from 1% reservation to the award of grace marks. The objective was to extend the benefit of incentive to a broader base of NCC cadets who qualify in the NEET rather than confining it to small number of students, who might secure the few seats under 1% quota. This objective is apparently legitimate and the method of awarding grace marks appears to be directly and rationally connected to achieving the object of incentivising larger number of students to join NCC. The argument of the petitioners that the award of grace marks is not beneficial, is the matter of subjective perception of the petitioners and by itself, does not render the policy made by the State either arbitrary or illegal.

18. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to compel the State or its instrumentality to either create or continue in perpetuity the policy which in the subjective perception of individual(s) is beneficial. The petitioners have no vested legal right to seek the continuation of 1% reservation for NCC cadets in the admission to MBBS/BDS. The State is well with its rights to alter its policies in public interest. The plea of legitimate expectation of the petitioners, is therefore, without any basis and is rejected.

19. The petitioners’ reliance on G.O.Ms.No.44 of the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh is completely misplaced. The fact that the neighbouring State has chosen a different policy mode