SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 43089

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH,THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
P. Abhigna – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 22699/2025



THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No. 22699 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for respondent No.1, 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:-

“…..to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: a) Declare Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No. 33 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department dated 19.07.2024 as being illegal, unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, with malafide intention to over-rule the judgments of this Hon'ble Court; b) Declare the Petitioner as local candidate for all purposes of admission into MBBS/BDS pursuant to NEET (UG) 2025 for MBBS/BDS Admissions under Competent Authority Quota- 2025-26 under aegis of Respondent No.2; c) Consequently, to direct Respondent No.2 to treat the Petitioner as Local Candidate pursuant to NEET (UG) 2025 for MBBS/BDS Admissions under Competent Authority Quota-2025-26 under aegis of Respondent No.2.d) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was born in Telangana on 23.08.2005 and completed her Class II to VI at Achampet Mandal, Nagarkurnool district, in Telangana State. However, pursued her Class VIII to Class X at Kittur in the State of Andhra Pradesh and she returned to Telangana to complete her Intermediate i.e., Class XI and XII. Subsequently, after she was qualified NEET (UG)-2025 she sought admission under the ‘Competent Authority Quota’ which is reserved for local candidates.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the underlying writ petition contends as follows:

i. that an application for admission into MBBS/BDS courses was made to the respondent No.2-University for the academic year 2025-26 and accordingly respondent No. 2 issued the admission prospectus which were issued pursuant to the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017 (for short ‘Rules 2017’) as amended by G.O. Ms. No. 33, dated 19.07.2024 and released a notification dated 16.07.2025 for online registration for the said courses, wherein the prospectus, mandated compulsory submission of a residence certificate as per Annexure-II, stipulating four years of continuous study or residence in Telangana prior to the qualifying examination.

ii. that the said requirement contradicts and violates the binding directions of this Court in order dated 05.09.2024 in W.P. No. 21910 of 2024 and Batch and in order dated 29.08.2023 W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and Batch wherein this Court has held that a residence certificate is sufficient for categorization as a local candidate.

iii. that the said the Regulations were framed in pursuant to Rule.3(a) of Rules 2017 as amended vide G.O.Ms. No.33 dated 19.07.2024, as framed under the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983.

iv. that as per regulation 2.2 of the prospectus, he is treated as non-local even though he is permanent resident of Telangana State which is violative of orders of the passed in W.P. No. 21910 of 2024 and Batch and in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and Batch.

5. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

6. It is pertinent to note that though the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended and relied on the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch, dated 29.08.2023 and in W.P.No.21910 of 2024 and batch, dated 05.09.2024, wherein it was held the previ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top