Telangana High Court
Dandekar Venugopal vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.21910, 22025, 22097, 22101, 22104,
22144, 22149, 22156, 22162, 22260, 22285, 22330,
22374, 22376, 22377, 22389, 22390, 22399, 22401,
22405, 22435, 22437, 22440, 22443, 22447, 22465,
22537, 22658, 22717, 22738, 22862, 22892, 23061,
23079, 23182, 23271, 23346, 23430, 23471, 23490,
23509, 23517, 23533, 23720, 23722, 23723, 23929,
23961, 24005, 24011, 24283, 24307 and 24353 of 2024
% Date: 05.09.2024
# Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and others.
... Petitioners
v.
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical and
Health Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad,
and others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.21910, 22435, 22862 and 23533 of 2024:
Mr. D.V.Sitharam Murthy,
learned Senior Counsel
representing
Mr. Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar;
W.P.No.22144, 22156 and 24005 of 2024:
Mr. B.Mayur Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel
2
representing
Mr. Alluri Divakar Reddy;
W.P.No.22658 of 2024: Mr. K.Vivek Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel
representing
Mr. Manoj Reddy Keshi Reddy;
W.P.No.23722 of 2024: Mr. A.Venkatesh,
learned Senior Counsel
representing
Mr. Sinde Mohan Devidhas;
W.P.Nos.22025 and 23271 of 2024:
Mr. Umesh Chandra P.V.G;
W.P.No.23346 of 2024: Mr. S.Goutham;
W.P.Nos.22260 and 22389 of 2024:
Mr. E.Sreenivasa Rao;
W.P.No.22101 of 2024: Mr. Lingala Sudheer;
W.P.Nos.22097, 22149 and 24283 of 2024:
Ms. P.Vijaya Lakshmi;
W.P.No.22104 of 2024: Mr. K.Durga Prasad;
W.P.No.22162 of 2024: Mr. Laxmaiah Kanchani;
W.P.No.22285 of 2024: Mr. V.Rohith;
W.P.Nos.22330, 22374, 22376, 22377, 22390, 22399,
22410, 22405 and 23182 of 2024:
Mr. Uzair Ahmed Khan;
3
W.P.No.22437 of 2024: Mr. Azam Khan,
learned counsel representing
Mr. T.Rathnaiah;
W.P.Nos.22440, 22443, 22447, 23720 and 23723 of 2024:
Mr. L.Ram Singh;
W.P.Nos.22465 of 2024: Mr. A.Suhas Chary,
learned counsel representing
Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar;
W.P.No.22537 of 2024: Mr. Ramesh Chilla;
W.P.No.22717 of 2024: Ms. P.Kalpana,
learned counsel representing
Mr. P.Bhaskar;
W.P.No.22738 of 2024: Mr. Kowturu Pavan Kumar;
W.P.No.22892 of 2024: Ms. Chennaboina Shravani;
W.P.No.23079 of 2024: Mr. Vempati Mallikarjun Shastry;
W.P.No.23061 of 2024: Mr. Milan Kumar Jena,
learned counsel representing Mr. H.Munwar;
W.P.No.23471 of 2024: Mr. K.Krishna Kalyan,
learned counsel representing
Mr. K.Venumadhav;
W.P.Nos.23490 and 23509 of 2024: Mr. G.Dinesh Patil
W.P.No.23517 of 2024: Ms. Sagarika Koneru;
W.P.No.23430 of 2024 and 24011 of 2024:
Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy;
4
W.P.No.23929 of 2024: Mr. Koushik Kanduri;
W.P.No.23961 of 2024: Mr. Kadiyala Ravindranath;
W.P.No.24307 of 2024: Mr. Rajeshwar Rao Garige
Representing Mr. Shashank Garige;
W.P.No.24353 of 2024: Mr. Nayakawadi Ramesh
^ Counsel for the respondents : Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy,
Learned Advocate General
for the State of Telangana;
Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao,
learned Standing Counsel for
Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences
assisted by Mr. G.Ravi;
Ms. Ande Vishala,
learned counsel representing
Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar,
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India,
for the Union of India;
< GIST:
HEAD NOTE:
? CASES REFERRED:
1. (1995) 2 SCC 135
2. (2018) 17 SCC 524
3. (2020) 13 SCC 675
4. (1989) 3 SCC 112
5. (2000) 2 SCC 20
6. (1984) 3 SCC 654
7. AIR 1984 P & H 55
8. AIR 1981 P&H 213
5
9. AIR 1955 SC 334
10. (1999) 8 SCC 139
11. 2000 SCC OnLine Bom 359
12. (2014) 2 AIR Kant R 578
13. (1971) 2 SCC 22
14. 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600
15. (1999) 9 SCC 700
16. (2011) 4 SCC 635
6
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.21910, 22025, 22097, 22101, 22104,
22144, 22149, 22156, 22162, 22260, 22285, 22330,
22374, 22376, 22377, 22389, 22390, 22399, 22401,
22405, 22435, 22437, 22440, 22443, 22447, 22465,
22537, 22658, 22717, 22738, 22862, 22892, 23061,
23079, 23182, 23271, 23346, 23430, 23471, 23490,
23509, 23517, 23533, 23720, 23722, 23723, 23929,
23961, 24005, 24011, 24283, 24307 and 24353 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
In this batch of writ petitions, the issue with regard
to validity of Rule 3(a) of the Telangana Medical and Dental
Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses)
Rules, 2017 (hereafter referred to as '2017 Rules') as
amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, arises for
consideration. The petitioners in this bunch of writ
petitions claim to be permanent residents of the State of
Telangana and seek a direction to treat them as local
candidates for admission into MBBS and BDS Courses in
the State of Telangana. Briefly stated the facts in different
writ petitions are as under:
(I) FACTS
W.P.No.21910 of 2024:
2. The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 14, as per the
averments made in the writ petition, have studied in the
State of Telangana all through. The aforesaid petitioners
shifted to State of Andhra Pradesh as the institute therein
was offering coaching for NEET examination exclusively.
The petitioners have passed the Intermediate examination
from the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner No.4 has
studied grades I to IV in Singapore, whereas grades V to X
in the State of Telangana. The petitioner No.4 had to shift
to Dubai due to her father's ill health and has taken long
term coaching in the State of Telangana for the academic
year 2023-24. The petitioner No.5 submits that she studied
grades I and II in the State of Andhra Pradesh, whereas
grades III to X in the State of Telangana. The petitioner
No.5 shifted to the State of Andhra Pradesh temporarily as
the educational institution in the State of Andhra Pradesh
offers coaching for NEET examination exclusively. The
petitioner No.5 has passed the Intermediate examination
from the State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.22025 of 2024:
3. The writ petition is conspicuously silent with regard
to details of educational qualifications of the petitioners
No.1 to 46. In the writ petition, it is also not stated whether
the said writ petitioners are residents of State of
Telangana.
4. The petitioner Nos.47 to 60, who were impleaded vide
order dated 14.08.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.
No.22025 of 2024, have averred that they were born in the
State of Telangana and have completed their primary and
secondary education at various schools in the State of
Telangana and claim to be locals and permanent residents
of State of Telangana.
W.P.No.22097 of 2024:
5. The petitioner in this petition claims to be native of
State of Telangana. She did her schooling i.e., 1st to 8th
standard in Wanaparthy, Telangana and 9th to 10th
standard in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Intermediate
Education at Wanaparthy, Telangana.
W.P.No.22101 of 2024:
6. The petitioner claims to be the native of
Mahabubnagar District, Telangana and claims to be
permanent resident of State of Telangana. The petitioner
submits that he has studied in the State of Telangana all
through, except that he had to study from grades VII to X
in Dubai, UAE due to professional exigencies of his father.
W.P.No.22104 of 2024:
7. The petitioner claims to be permanent resident of
State of Telangana. The petitioner submits that she has
studied in the State of Telangana all through, but had to
pursue Intermediate from the State of Andhra Pradesh as
the institute therein is the only institute offering BiPC and
NEET coaching.
W.P.No.22144 of 2024:
8. The petitioner claims to be native of Secunderabad
and a permanent resident of State of Telangana. The
petitioner submits that she studied in the State of
Telangana all through except grade X, which she studied in
the State of Maharashtra. She further submits she has
undergone long term coaching for NEET phase 2 from
2023-24 in the State of Telangana.
W.P.No.22149 of 2024:
9. The petitioner claims to be permanent resident of
State of Telangana, being native from Wanaparthy District.
The petitioner submits that she has studied in the State of
Telangana all through except grades IX and X which she
studied in the State of Andhra Pradesh to avail better
educational facilities.
W.P.No.22156 of 2024:
10. The petitioner claims to be born in the State of
Telangana, being native of Nirmal District and permanent
resident of State of Telangana. The petitioner submits that
he studied in the State of Telangana all through, except
grade X, which he studied in an institute in the State of
Maharashtra through distance education due to gap after
IX grade.
W.P.No.22162 of 2024:
11. The petitioner claims to be born in the State of
Telangana, being native of Nalgonda District and
permanent resident of State of Telangana. The petitioner
submits that he has studied in the State of Telangana all
through, except 2 years of Intermediate which he pursued
from the State of Andhra Pradesh as the institutes therein
offer NEET coaching exclusively.
W.P.No.22260 of 2024:
12. The petitioners in this petition claim to be the natives
of State of Telangana. All the petitioners, except petitioner
Nos.1 and 2, have completed their schooling in the State of
Telangana and Intermediate education in the State of
Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner No.5 studied Intermediate in
the State of Karnataka. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have
completed their 1st to 8th grades in the State of Telangana,
9th and 10th grades in the State of Andhra Pradesh and
Intermediate Education in the State of Telangana. All the
petitioners claim that their parents are permanent
residents of State of Telangana.
W.P.No.22285 of 2024:
13. The petitioner claims to be born in the State of
Telangana, being native of Nizamabad District and
permanent resident of State of Telangana. The petitioner
submits that he studied in the State of Telangana all
through, except 2 years of higher education i.e., grades XI
and XII in the State of Maharashtra.
W.P.Nos.22330, 22374, 22376, 22377, 22390, 22399,
22401, 22405 and 23182 of 2024:
14. The petitioners in these petitions claim to be natives
of State of Telangana and pursued their education outside
the State of Telangana. However, they claim that their
parents are permanent residents of State of Telangana.
W.P. No.22389 of 2024:
15. The petitioner claims to be native of the State of
Telangana. She completed her schooling in Husnabad,
Siddipet District, Telangana and Intermediate Education in
Krishna District, State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.22435 of 2024:
16. The petitioners claim to be natives of State of
Telangana. The petitioners completed their schooling from
various schools in the State of Telangana and Intermediate
in Vijayawada, State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.22437 of 2024:
17. The petitioner claims to be native of the State of
Telangana. She completed her schooling from St. Peter's
Central Public School, Warangal, State of Telangana and
Intermediate Education at Aditya Junior College,
Punadipadu, Krishna Dist, State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.22440 of 2024:
18. The petitioner claims to be native of the State of
Telangana. He completed 1st to 5th standard at Dream
Valley, Karwan, Telangana and 6th to 10th standard from
Central Board of Secondary Education, Doha, Qatar and
Intermediate Education in the State of Telangana.
W.P.No.22443 of 2024:
19. The petitioners claim to be natives of the State of
Telangana. Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 have completed their
entire studies from Saudi Arabia and petitioner Nos.2 and
3 have completed their schooling from Saudi Arabia and
Intermediate Education from the State of Telangana.
W.P.No.22447 of 2024:
20. The petitioner claims to be native of State of
Telangana. The petitioner completed primary schooling i.e.,
1st to 3rd standard from Bangalore, 4th to 10th standard
from Chennai and Intermediate Education in the State of
Telangana.
W.P.No.22465 of 2024:
21. The petitioner claims to be native of the State of
Telangana. She completed 1st to 9th standard in various
schools in the State of Telangana, 10th standard from
Andhra Pradesh and Intermediate Education in the State of
Telangana.
W.P.No.22537 of 2024:
22. The petitioner claims to be a native of the State of
Telangana. She completed 1st to 9th standard in the State of
Telangana and 10th standard and Intermediate Education
from the State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.22658 of 2024:
23. The petitioner claims to be a native of the State of
Telangana. The petitioner completed her schooling from
Delhi Public School, Hyderabad, Telangana and
Intermediate Education from the State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.22717 of 2024:
24. The petitioners have neither mentioned their
educational details nor mentioned that they are native of
the State of Telangana.
W.P.No.22738 of 2024:
25. The petitioner claims to be the native of the State of
Telangana and her parents are permanent residents of
Telangana. The petitioner completed her schooling in the
State of Telangana and 10th standard and Intermediate in
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.22862 of 2024:
26. The petitioners claim to be permanent residents of
State of Telangana. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 submits
that they have studied in the State of Telangana all
through, except 2 years of Intermediate in the State of
Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner No.3 submits that she has
studied till grade VI in the State of Telangana and grades
VII to XII in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.22892 of 2024:
27. The petitioner claims to be resident of State of
Telangana. The petitioner submits that she has studied in
Telangana all through. The petitioner on account of father's
treatment in Vijayawada studied upto grades VIII to X in
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.23061 of 2024:
28. The petitioners did not state their educational details
and neither there is any mention of their residential status.
The petitioners have only mentioned their residential
address.
W.P.No.23079 of 2024:
29. The petitioner has neither mentioned his educational
details nor residential status in the affidavit. The petitioner
filed educational certificates along with the affidavit from
which it can be gathered that the petitioner completed his
schooling in the State of Telangana and Intermediate
Education from Thane, Maharashtra.
W.P.No.23271 of 2024:
30. The facts, as can be inferred from the averments in
this writ petition, are that the petitioners who were born in
State of Telangana claim themselves to be permanent
residents of State of Telangana. The petitioners, except the
petitioner No.2, have completed their primary and
secondary education at various schools in the State of
Telangana. They claim that they are locals and
sons/daughters of the soil of the State of Telangana. The
petitioner No.2 claims that though his address is in the
State of Andhra Pradesh, he had studied in the State of
Telangana all through, except that due to his father's
professional exigencies he had studied in the State of
Andhra Pradesh for two years.
W.P.No.23346 of 2024:
31. The petitioner claims to be born in the State of
Telangana, being a native of Warangal District and
permanent resident of State of Telangana. The petitioner
submits that he has studied grade I in Bangalore, grades II
to VI in the State of Madhya Pradesh, grades IX and X in
the State of Rajasthan and Intermediate in the State of
Telangana. The petitioner claims that he and his family
hails from State of Telangana but due to his father's
employment, he completed his education in various
schools in different States.
W.P.No.23430 of 2024:
32. The petitioner completed her school education from
classes 1 to 12 in Saudi Arabia. She claims that her
parents are permanent residents of the State of Telangana
and her father is working in Riyadh K.S.A. (Saudi Arabia)
and that her permanent residence along with her parents
is located at Asif Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana.
W.P.No.23471 of 2024:
33. The petitioner claims that he did his schooling at TS
Model School, Kathaklapur, Telangana, and completed
Intermediate from Sri Satya Sai Loka Seva Gurukulam,
State of Karnataka. The petitioner claims that he is a
permanent resident of the State of Telangana and has
studied outside the State only for a limited period for better
education facilities and his parents are permanent
residents of State of Telangana.
W.P.No.23490 of 2024:
34. The petitioner claims that he is a native of Hyderabad
and his parents are permanent residents of Telangana. He
did his schooling from classes I to X in Hyderabad and
studied Intermediate at Bangalore, Karnataka. Thereafter,
he took one year long term NEET coaching in Bangalore.
W.P.No.23509 of 2024:
35. The petitioner claims that he is a native of Hyderabad
and his parents are permanent residents of the State of
Telangana. He did his schooling from 1st to 10th classes in
Hyderabad and studied Intermediate at Bidar, State of
Karnataka.
W.P.No.23517 of 2024:
36. The petitioner No.1 was born in the State of
Maharashtra. Thereafter, she pursued her secondary and
higher education from the State of Maharashtra. She
claims that her father is a permanent resident of the State
of Telangana but had shifted to the State of Maharashtra in
the year 1998 due to professional commitments. The
petitioner No.2 was born in Karimnagar District,
Telangana. She pursued her secondary and higher
education from the State of Maharashtra. She claims that
her father is a permanent resident of the State of
Telangana but had shifted to the State of Maharashtra in
the year 2011 due to professional commitments.
W.P.No.23533 of 2024:
37. The petitioner No.1 claims that his parents are
permanent residents of the State of Telangana. He
completed his schooling from 1st to 10th class in the State
of Telangana and studied Intermediate at Sri Chaitanya
Junior College, Kankipadu, Krishna District, Andhra
Pradesh. The petitioner No.2 completed her schooling from
1st to 10th class in the State of Telangana and studied
Intermediate at Sasi English Medium High School,
Velivenu, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.23720 of 2024:
38. The petitioner claims that her parents are permanent
residents of the State of Telangana. But, since her parents
got opportunity to work in Saudi Arabia, she had to go to
Saudi Arabia along with them and she had studied from
classes I to X in Saudi Arabia. Later, she completed her
Intermediate in the State of Telangana.
W.P.No.23722 of 2024:
39. The petitioner claims that he along with his parents
stayed in Nirmal District near Bhainsa Town and were the
residents of the said place for the past ten years. For better
educational faculty, he joined in the school at Bhokar,
Nanded District, State of Maharashtra and completed his
schooling by travelling there daily, but used to reside in the
State of Telangana only. The petitioner states that he had
completed his Intermediate education at Bhainsa, Nirmal
District, State of Telangana.
W.P.No.23723 of 2024:
40. The petitioner claims that she along with her parents
are permanent residents of the State of Telangana, but had
studied outside the State of Telangana for a limited period
i.e., for Intermediate at Punadipadu, Kankipadu Mandal in
Krishna District of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.23929 of 2024:
41. The petitioner claims that she along with her parents
are permanent residents of the State of Telangana. She
completed her schooling from LKG to X class in Khammam
District, State of Telangana. She pursued Intermediate 1st
and 2nd year at Kanuru, Vijayawada, State of Andhra
Pradesh.
W.P.No.23961 of 2024:
42. The petitioner claims that she and her parents are
permanent residents of the State of Telangana and she had
studied VI to X and also XI and XII at Navi Mumbai, the
State of Maharastra.
W.P.No.24005 of 2024:
43. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a native and
resident of Kukatpally locality of Medchal-Malkajgiri
District, State of Telangana. She studied from classes I to
V in Hyderabad, Telangana, and from classes VI to X in
Guntur District of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Thereafter, she has studied Intermediate at Sanga Reddy
District, State of Telangana.
W.P.No.24011 of 2024:
44. The petitioner claims that her parents are permanent
residents of the State of Telangana. She had studied from
classes 1 to 9 in Bhadrachalam, Telangana, and studied
10th class in Purushottapatnam Village, Yetapaka, Alluri
Sitha Rama Raju District (originally part of Bhadrachalam,
Telangana). She studied Intermediate two years in
Khammam District, State of Telangana.
W.P.No.24283 of 2024:
45. The petitioners claim that they are permanent
residents of the State of Telangana. The petitioners
completed their schooling from 1st to 8th classes in the
State of Telangana and completed their 9th and 10th classes
in the State of Andhra Pradesh. They studied Intermediate
in the State of Telangana.
W.P.No.24307 of 2024:
46. The petitioner claims that her parents are permanent
residents of the State of Telangana. She completed her
school education from IV to X classes in the State of
Telangana and pursued 11th and 12th standard in the State
of Haryana.
W.P.No.24353 of 2024:
47. The petitioner studied 1st to 10th classes in Kendriya
Vidyalaya, Picket, Secunderabad in the State of Telangana.
After schooling she studied 11th and 12th classes in
Akshara Vidyalaya SPSR Nellore District, State of Andhra
Pradesh.
48. The petitioners appeared in the NEET examination on
05.05.2024. The result of the NEET examination was
declared on 26.07.2024. The process for examination
began on 09.02.2024. Thereafter the examination was
conducted on 05.05.2024. The respondent No.1, i.e., the
State of Telangana amended Telangana Medical and Dental
Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses)
Rules, 2017 vide G.O.Ms.No.33, Health, Medical and
Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 19.07.2024. The
petitioners state that Rule 3(a)(i) and 3(a)(ii) which were
introduced to prescribe eligibility for admissions into
undergraduate courses under 'Competent Authority Quota'
prescribe the very same criteria, which was held to be
unconstitutional by this Court earlier. In view of the
aforesaid amended rule position, the petitioners became
ineligible to be considered against local quota of 85%
reserved for permanent residents of State of Telangana.
The petitioners have already secured residence certificates
but the same are not in the prescribed format i.e.,
Annexure II annexed to the Prospectus issued by the Kaloji
Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (hereinafter
referred to as, "the University"). It is the case of the
petitioners that in view of the Rule 3(a)(iii) of the 2017
Rules, they would be ineligible to get a residence certificate.
The last date for submission of online applications and
uploading certificates was on 13.08.2024. The petitioners,
therefore, have assailed the validity of Rule 3(a) of the 2017
Rules and have sought a relief that they be declared as
local candidates for the purposes of admission into
MBBS/BDS courses for the Academic Year 2024-2025.
(II) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
49. Mr. D.V.Sitaram Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners in W.P.Nos.21910, 22435, 22862 and
23533 of 2024, while inviting the attention of this Court, to
Rule 3(III)(B) of the 2017 Rules as well as Rule 3(a) which is
under challenge in these petitions contended that Rule 3(a)
is identically worded as Rule 3(III)(B) of the 2017 Rules and
is in contravention of the common order by a Division
Bench of this Court, dated 29.08.2023 passed in
W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch which has attained
finality. It is further contended that the State Government
while amending the Rule has not removed the basis of the
aforesaid common order and therefore, the impugned Rule
is liable to be struck down.
50. Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners in W.P.No.22144, 22156 and 24005 of 2024
submitted that identically worded Rule was struck down by
a Division Bench of this Court vide common order dated
29.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch.
51. It is contended that the requirement of residence
certificate in the proforma appended to the Rules is in
contravention of the common order dated 29.08.2023
passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21268
of 2023 and batch. It is further contended that the
impugned amended Rule contains a more stringent
requirement of not only residence, but having passed the
12th class examination from the State of Telangana. It is
submitted that it was open for the respondents to bring to
the notice of this Court the decisions rendered by the
Supreme Court in Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana 1
and Rajdeep Ghosh v. State of Assam 2 in the previous
round of litigation. It is pointed out that the State has
neither sought review nor has filed any Special Leave
Petition against the common order dated 29.08.2023
passed in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch, which has
attained finality and binds the parties. Reference has also
been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr.
Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel 3 and it has been contended that
the issue whether a reservation can be provided on the
basis of domicile/residence for admission to Post Graduate
Medical Courses has been referred for consideration of a
Larger Bench.
52. Mr. K.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.No.22658 of 2024 has submitted that a
Division Bench of this Court in the common order dated
(1995) 2 SCC 135
(2018) 17 SCC 524
(2020) 13 SCC 675
29.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch has
not dealt with the issue whether reservation on the basis of
residence can be provided. It is further submitted that the
Division Bench of this Court has only dealt with the issue
whether it is constitutionally permissible to deny the
benefit of admission to permanent residents of the State. It
is also submitted that the ratio of the common order dated
29.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch is
whether any classification made by which permanent
residents of State of Telangana are excluded, is
constitutionally permissible. Attention of this Court has
also been invited to paragraph 86 of the aforesaid common
order. It is contended that the issue decided by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and
batch has not been dealt with in Anant Madaan (supra)
and Rajdeep Ghosh (supra) and the aforesaid decisions
have no bearing on the controversy involved in the instant
writ petitions.
53. Learned Senior Counsel has contended that the
petitioner had moved out of State of Telangana due to
circumstances beyond her control, as the parents of the
petitioner belong to All India Services. In support of his
submission, reliance has been placed on Meenakshi Malik
v. University of Delhi 4. It is also urged that Section 95 of
the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and the
Presidential Order have no bearing on the controversy
involved in the instant writ petitions and the same issue
has been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in
paragraph 92 of the common order dated 29.08.2023
passed in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch.
54. Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.No.23722 of 2024 submits that the
petitioner is a permanent resident of State of Telangana
and he deserves to be accorded the benefit of local
candidate. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned
(1989) 3 SCC 112
Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dudh Nath Prasad 5.
55. Mr. Uzair Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.22330, 22374, 22376, 22377,
22390, 22399, 22410, 22405 and 23182 of 2024
submitted that the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court in Dr.Pradeep Jain v. Union of India 6 does not
apply to the State of Telangana. It is further submitted that
the State Government is bound by the doctrine of estoppel
and cannot amend the Rules. It is argued that the
petitioners had legitimate expectation that the State
Government would not amend the Rules and the aforesaid
legitimate expectation of the petitioners has been defeated.
It is also urged that in case there is a conflict between two
decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Court should
follow the law which, according to the High Court, is most
just and reasonable. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of
(2000) 2 SCC 20
(1984) 3 SCC 654
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulbhushan Kumar
and Company v. State of Punjab 7 and Indo Swiss Time
Limited v. Umrao 8.
56. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the other
writ petitions have adopted the submissions made by
Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel.
(III) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
57. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has
invited the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.114, dated
05.07.2017, by which the 2017 Rules were notified. It is
submitted that the aforesaid Rules were amended by
G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 03.07.2023. It is pointed out that the
validity of G.O.Ms.No.72 has been examined by a Division
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18047 of 2023 and batch
and the said writ petitions were dismissed. It is submitted
that the Special Leave Petitions filed against the aforesaid
order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Division Bench of
AIR 1984 P & H 55
AIR 1981 P&H 213
this Court have been dismissed vide order dated
05.03.2024 passed in SLP (C).Nos.21397-21407 of 2023. It
is contended that the period of ten years has expired and
therefore, it had become mandatory on the part of the State
Government to define the "local area" and to amend the
Rules. It is further contended that the decision of the
Supreme Court in Meenakshi Malik (supra) deals with a
candidate who on account of fortuitous circumstance left
the State. It is pointed out that the petitioners, except the
petitioner in W.P.No.22658 of 2024, have studied outside
on their own volition. It is stated that the respondents shall
treat the petitioner in W.P.No.22658 of 2024 as a local
candidate.
58. It is urged that it is open for the State to provide for
reservation on the basis of domicile/residence in the State.
In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been
placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anant
Madaan (supra) and Rajdeep Ghosh (supra).
(IV) REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS:
59. Mr. D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners in W.P.Nos.21910, 22435, 22862 and
23533 of 2024, has submitted that the petitioners in the
said writ petitions have passed their Intermediate
examination from the State of Andhra Pradesh and they
are permanent residents of State of Telangana. Therefore,
the benefit of 85% quota reservation for local candidates
cannot be denied to them.
60. Mr. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, submitted
that the petitioners do not dispute the requirement of
providing the reservation on the basis of domicile in the
State of Telangana. It is contended that the petitioners
being permanent residents of the State of Telangana,
should be treated as local candidates. Reference has been
made to the decision Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in D.P.Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat 9 and a
decision rendered by three Judge Bench of the Supreme
AIR 1955 SC 334
Court in Dr.Pradeep Jain (supra). It is contended that the
decisions in Anant Madaan (supra) and Rajdeep Ghosh
(supra) have been rendered by two Judges of Supreme
Court and have no application to the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(V) ANALYSIS:
61. We have considered the submissions made on rival
sides and have perused the record.
62. Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,
2014, mandates that in order to ensure equal opportunities
for quality higher education to all students in the
successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the
existing admission quotas in all government or private,
aided, unaided institutions of higher technical and medical
education in so far as it provided under Article 371D of the
Constitution, shall continue for a period of ten years
during which existing common admission process shall
continue.
63. The State Government in exercise of powers under
Section 3 read with Section 15(1) of the Telangana
Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
Prohibition of Capitation Fee), Act, 1983, framed the Rules
for preparation of seat matrix and selection procedure for
admission to MBBS and BDS courses, namely Telangana
Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into
MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017. Rule 3(III)(A) defines
the expression "local area" as to mean the areas comprised
in the State of Andhra Pradesh as well. Rule 3(III)(B)
defines the expression "local candidate" as candidate who
has studied or resided in local area for four consecutive
years ending with the academic year in which he appeared
or, as the case may be, first appeared in relevant qualifying
examination and in case he does not study in local area for
a period of four years, he has to reside in the local area for
a period of four years immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the relevant qualifying examination.
64. The validity of the aforesaid Rule was challenged in a
bunch of petitions, namely W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and
batch. A Division Bench of this Court, followed the decision
rendered by Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation v. Nilaybhai R.Thakore 10 and agreed with
the view expressed by the Division Bench decisions of
Bombay and Karnataka High Courts in Rajiv Purshottam
Wadhwa v. State of Maharashtra 11 and State of
Karnataka v. B.Mahadevaiah 12 and vide common order
dated 29.08.2023, inter alia, held as follows:
"i) The 2017 Rules have been framed in
exercise of powers under Section 3 read with
Section 15(1) of the Telangana Educational
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
Prohibition of Capitation Fee), Act, 1983;
ii) There is no justification for denying
the benefit of admission to a student who is
permanent resident of Telangana who may not
have studied in local area for four academic years
ending with the academic year in which he or she
(1999) 8 SCC 139
2000 SCC OnLine Bom 359
(2014) 2 AIR Kant R 578
appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared
for relevant qualifying examination.
iii) Rule 3(III)(B) of the 2017 Rules was
read down and it was held that the same shall
not apply to permanent residents of State of
Telangana. It was further held that reading down
the provision shall be in consonance of object of
Article 371D(2)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of India.
iv) In case petitioners in the aforesaid
batch of petitions produce residence certificate
issued by the competent authority of the
Government of Telangana, the petitioners in the
said bunch of cases shall be treated as local
candidates."
65. Admittedly, the order passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 has attained finality.
66. The period of ten years expired on 01.06.2024.
Therefore, it was incumbent on the State Government to
amend the Rules. The State Government in exercise of
powers under Section 3 read with Section 15(1) of the
Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of
Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee), Act, 1983,
amended Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules.
(VI) RULES:
67. Rule 3(III) of 2017 Rules and Rule 3(a) amended vide
G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, read as under:
Read Down Rule 3(III)(B) of Amended/Impugned Rule 3(a)
2017 Rules vide order which is under Challenge in
dated 29.08.2023 in WP this Petition
21268 of 2023
(B) The Local Candidate: A (a) A candidate for admission
candidate for admission into undergraduate courses
shall be regarded as a under Competent Authority
local candidate in relation Quota in Telangana should be
to a local area. Indian National/ Person of
Indian Origin (PIO)/ Overseas
a) If he has studied in Citizens of India (OCI) card
educational Institutions in holder and shall fulfil the
such local area for a following provisions:
period of not less than
four consecutive academic i) If the candidate has studied
years ending with the in educational Institutions in
academic year in which he such local area for a period of
appeared or as the case not less than four consecutive
may be first appeared in academic years ending with
the relevant qualifying the academic year in which he
examination. appeared or as the case may
be first appeared in the
OR relevant qualifying
examination.
b) Where during the whole or
or any part of the four
consecutive academic ii) Where during the whole or
years ending with the any part of the four
academic year in which he consecutive academic years
appeared or as the case ending with the academic year
may be first appeared for in which he appeared, or as
the relevant qualifying the case may be, first
examination, he has not appeared for the relevant
studied in any educational qualifying examination, he
Institutions, if he has has not studied in any
resided in that local area educational institutions, if he
for a period of not less has resided in that local area
than four years for a period of not less than
immediately preceding the four years immediately
date of commencement of preceding the date of
the relevant qualifying commencement of the relevant
examination which he qualifying examination which
appeared or as the case he appeared or as the case
may be first appeared. may be first appeared.
iii) Local area herein means
the State of Telangana.
Further, in case the candidate
has not studied in any
educational institution and
has resided in the local area
as stated at (ii) above, to be
eligible for admission into
undergraduate courses under
'Competent Authority Quota',
the candidate should have
appeared for the relevant
qualifying examination in the
State of Telangana
68. Rule 3(a) of the Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.33,
dated 19.07.2024, requires that a candidate seeking
admission under the quota meant for local candidates has
to study in the State of Telangana for a period of four years
or reside in the State of Telangana for a period of four
years. In addition, the candidate has to pass the qualifying
examination from the State of Telangana. Thus, a more
stringent requirement in Rule 3(a) of the Rules has been
incorporated, namely that the candidate must have to pass
the qualifying examination from the State of Telangana.
69. Now we may advert to the decisions of the Supreme
Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), Anant Madaan (supra)
and Rajdeep Ghosh (supra). A three-Judge Bench of
Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) dealt with the
issue whether admission to a medical college or any other
institution of higher learning situate in a State can be
confined to those who have their domicile within the State
or who are residents within the State for a specified
number of years or can any reservations in admission be
made for them so as to give them precedence over those
who do not possess domicile or residence qualification
within the State irrespective of merit. The aforesaid issue
was answered by the Supreme Court in paragraph 19,
which reads as under:
"19. It will be noticed from the above discussion that
though intra-State discrimination between persons
resident in different districts or regions of a State has by
and large been frowned upon by the Court and struck
down as invalid as in Minor P. Rajendran v. State of
Madras [AIR 1968 SC 1012 : (1968) 2 SCR 786 : (1968) 2
SCJ 801] and A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil
Nadu [(1971) 1 SCC 38 : AIR 1971 SC 2303 : (1971) 2
SCR 430] the Court has in D.N. Chanchala v. State of
Mysore [(1971) 2 SCC 293 : AIR 1971 SC 1762 : 1971
Supp SCR 608] and other similar cases upheld
institutional reservation effected through university-wise
distribution of seats for admission to medical colleges.
The Court has also by its decisions in D.P. Joshi v. State
of Madhya Bharat [AIR 1955 SC 334 : (1955) 1 SCR
1215 : 1955 SCJ 298] and N. Vasundara v. State of
Mysore [(1971) 2 SCC 22 : AIR 1971 SC 1439 : 1971
Supp SCR 381] sustained the constitutional validity of
reservation based on residence requirement within a
State for the purpose of admission to medical colleges.
These decisions which all relate to admission to MBBS
course are binding upon us and it is therefore not
possible for us to hold, in the face of these decisions,
that residence requirement in a State for admission to
MBBS course is irrational and irrelevant and cannot be
introduced as a condition for admission without
violating the mandate of equality of opportunity
contained in Article 14. We must proceed on the basis
that at least so far as admission to MBBS course is
concerned, residence requirement in a State can be
introduced as a condition for admission to the MBBS
course. It is of course true that the Medical Education
Review Committee established by the Government of
India has in its report recommended after taking into
account all relevant considerations, that the "final
objective should be to ensure that all admissions to the
MBBS course should be open to candidates on an all-
India basis without the imposition of existing domiciliary
condition", but having regard to the practical difficulties
of transition to the stage where admissions to MBBS
course in all medical colleges would be on all-India
basis, the Medical Education Review Committee has
suggested "that to begin with not less than 25 per cent
seats in each institution may be open to candidates on
all-India basis". We are not at all sure whether at the
present stage it would be consistent with the mandate of
equality in its broader dynamic sense to provide that
admissions to the MBBS course in all medical colleges in
the country should be on all-India basis. Theoretically,
of course, if admissions are given on the basis of all-
India national entrance examination, each individual
would have equal opportunity of securing admission, but
that would not take into account diverse considerations,
such as, differing level of social, economic and
educational development of different regions, disparity in
the number of seats available for admission to the MBBS
course in different States, difficulties which may be
experienced by students from one region who might in
the competition on all-India basis get admission to the
MBBS course in another region far remote from their
own and other allied factors. There can be no doubt that
the policy of ensuring admissions to the MBBS course
on all-India basis is a highly desirable policy, based as it
is on the postulate that India is one nation and every
citizen of India is entitled to have equal opportunity for
education and advancement, but it is an ideal to be
aimed at and it may not be realistically possible, in the
present circumstances, to adopt it, for it cannot produce
real equality of opportunity unless there is complete
absence of disparities and inequalities -- a situation
which simply does not exist in the country today. There
are massive social and economic disparities and
inequalities not only between State and State but also
between region and region within a State and even
between citizens and citizens within the same region.
There is a yawning gap between the rich and the poor
and there are so many disabilities and injustices from
which the poor suffer as a class that they cannot avail
themselves of any opportunities which may in law be
open to them. They do not have the social and material
resources to take advantage of these opportunities which
remain merely on paper recognised by law but non-
existent in fact. Students from backward States or
regions will hardly be able to compete with those from
advanced States or regions because, though possessing
an intelligent mind, they would have had no adequate
opportunities for development so as to be in a position to
compete with others. So also students belonging to the
weaker sections who have not, by reason of their socially
or economically disadvantaged position, been able to
secure education in good schools would be at a
disadvantage compared to students belonging to the
affluent or well-to-do families who have had the best of
school education and in open all-India competition, they
would be likely to be worsted. There would also be a
number of students who, if they do not get admission in
a medical college near their residence and are assigned
admission in a far off college in another State as a result
of open all-India competition, may not be able to go to
such other college on account of lack of resources and
facilities and in the result, they would be effectively
deprived of a real opportunity for pursuing the medical
course even though on paper they would have got
admission in a medical college. It would be tantamount
to telling these students that they are given an
opportunity of taking up the medical course, but if they
cannot afford it by reason of the medical college to which
they are admitted being far away in another State, it is
their bad luck: the State cannot help it, because the
State has done all that it could, namely, provide equal
opportunity to all for medical education. But the
question is whether the opportunity provided is real or
illusory? We are therefore of the view that a certain
percentage of reservation on the basis of residence
requirement may legitimately be made in order to
equalise opportunities for medical admission on a
broader basis and to bring about real and not formal,
actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage of
reservation made on this count may also include
institutional reservation for students passing the PUC or
pre-medical examination of the same university or
clearing the qualifying examination from the school
system of the educational hinterland of the medical
colleges in the State and for this purpose, there should
be no distinction between schools affiliated to State
Board and schools affiliated to the Central Board of
Secondary Education. It would be constitutionally
permissible to provide, as an interim measure until we
reach the stage when we can consistently with the broad
mandate of the rule of equality in the larger sense,
ensure admissions to the MBBS course on the basis of
national entrance examination -- an ideal which we
must increasingly strive to reach -- for reservation of a
certain percentage of seats in the medical colleges for
students satisfying a prescribed residence requirement
as also for students who have passed PUC or pre-
medical examination or any other qualifying examination
held by the university or the State and for this purpose
it should make no difference whether the qualifying
examination is conducted by the State Board or by the
Central Board of Secondary Education, because no
discrimination can be made between schools affiliated to
the State Board and schools affiliated to the Central
Board of Secondary Education. We may point out that at
the close of the arguments we asked the learned
Attorney General to inform the Court as to what was the
stand of the Government of India in the matter of such
reservation and the learned Attorney General in
response to the inquiry made by the Court filed a policy
statement which contained the following formulation of
the policy of the Government of India:
"Central Government is generally opposed
to the principle of reservation based on domicile
or residence for admission to institution of higher
education, whether professional or otherwise. In
view of the territorially articulated nature of the
system of institutions of higher learning including
institutions of professional education, there is no
objection, however, to stipulating reservation or
preference for a reasonable quantum in
undergraduate courses for students hailing from
the school system of educational hinterland of the
institutions. For this purpose, there should be no
distinction between schools affiliated to State
Board and schools affiliated to CBSE."
We are glad to find that the policy of the Government of
India in the matter of reservation based on residence
requirement and institutional preference accords with
the view taken by us in that behalf. We may point out
that even if at some stage it is decided to regulate
admissions to the MBBS course on the basis of all-India
entrance examination, some provision would have to be
made for allocation of seats amongst the selected
candidates on the basis of residence or institutional
affiliation so as to take into account the aforementioned
factors."
70. After taking note of the decisions of the Supreme
Court in D.P.Joshi (supra) and N.Vasundara v. State of
Mysore 13, it was held that residence requirement in a State
for admission to MBBS course cannot be termed as
irrational and irrelevant and can be introduced as a
condition for admission without violating the mandate of
equality of opportunity contained in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Thus, it was concluded that certain
percentage of reservation on the basis of residence
requirement may legitimately be made to equalise the
(1971) 2 SCC 22
opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and
to bring about real and not formal, actual and not mere
legal, equality.
71. A two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Anant
Madaan (supra) held that eligibility criteria prescribed for
admission to medical colleges in the State of Haryana that
the candidates must have studied for preceding three years
in the recognized schools/colleges in State of Haryana in
respect of 85% of seats cannot be considered as
unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. Paragraph 10 is extracted below for the facility of
reference:
"10. In the present case, the reservation which
has been made on the basis of candidates having
studied for the preceding three years in recognised
schools/colleges in Haryana is in respect of these 85% of
seats. It excludes 15% seats which have to be filled in on
an all-India basis. This eligibility criterion, therefore, is
in conformity with the decisions of this Court referred to
above. It cannot, therefore, be considered as arbitrary or
unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution."
72. Thereafter, another two-Judge Bench of Supreme
Court in Rajdeep Ghosh (supra) dealt with the validity of
the criteria for reservation based on domicile for admission
to MBBS course in the State of Assam as contained in Rule
3(1)(c) of Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam
(Regulations of Admission into 1st Year MBBS/BDS
Courses) Rules, 2017. It was held as under in paragraphs
15, 31 and 32:
"15. The main question for consideration is whether the
classification that has been made in Rule 3(1)(c) of the
2017 Rules is unreasonable and violative of the
provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and students passing out or obtaining education in
other States in the aforesaid exigencies have been
illegally ousted from the eligibility criteria prescribed for
seats of the State quota.
31. As held in the aforesaid decisions, it is permissible
to lay down the essential educational requirements,
residential/domicile in a particular State in respect of
basic courses of MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic. The object
sought to be achieved is that the incumbent must serve
the State concerned and for the emancipation of the
educational standards of the people who are residing in
a particular State, such reservation has been upheld by
this Court for the inhabitants of the State and
prescription of the condition of obtaining an education in
a State. The only distinction has been made with respect
to postgraduate and postdoctoral superspeciality course.
32. Rule 3(1)(c) of the 2017 Rules lays down the
requirement of obtaining education in the State and
relaxation has been given to the wards of the State
Government employees or Central Government
employees or to an employee of corporation/agency/
instrumentality under the Government of Assam or the
Central Government, whether on deputation or transfer
on regular posting from obtaining education from
Classes VII to XII for the period his/her father or mother
is working outside the State. As urged on behalf of the
petitioners the employees of other State Government but
residents of Assam, similar relaxation ought to have
been made cannot be accepted. Thus, their exclusion
cannot be said to be irrational and arbitrary. The wards
of the employees in the service of other States like
government employees of Arunachal Pradesh, in our
opinion, form a totally different class. When the wards
are obtaining education outside and the parents are
working in Arunachal Pradesh as government employee
or elsewhere, they are not likely to come back to the
State of Assam. As such Government of Assam holds
that they should provide preference to State
residents/institutional preference cannot be said to
unintelligible criteria suffering from vice of arbitrariness
in any manner whatsoever, thus, Rule 3(1)(c) framed by
the Government of Assam is based on an intelligible
differentia and cannot be said to be discriminatory and
in violation of Article 14."
73. After referring to earlier decisions rendered in
D.P.Joshi (supra) and Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), it was
held that it is permissible to lay down the essential
educational requirements, residential/domicile in a
particular State in respect of admission to basic courses,
namely MBBS, BDS and Ayurvedic. It was further held that
object of providing reservation is that incumbent must
serve the concerned State for the emancipation of the
educational standards of the people who are residing in a
particular State.
74. Thus, on perusal of decisions of the Supreme Court
in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), Anant Madaan (supra) and
Rajdeep Ghosh (supra), it is axiomatic that the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions is that it is permissible to lay down the
requirement of residence or the domicile in a particular
State for admission to MBBS/BDS course. However, it is
not open to the State to make wholesale reservations on
the basis of domicile, residence and institutional
preferences. Such a reservation, however, cannot exceed
the outer limit of 70% of total seats by taking into account
other reservations validly made.
(VI) ISSUE:
75. The issue which arises for consideration in this batch
of writ petitions is whether the benefit of being a local
candidate can be denied to a candidate who otherwise
fulfils the requirement of residence or domicile within the
State.
(VIII) OBJECT OF RULE:
76. One of the objects of Rule 3(a) in the Rules of
admission is to protect the claim by the students residing
within the State or domicile for admission to medical
courses within the State. Another object of the Rule is to
ensure that medical facilities are made available to the
residents of the State as permanent residents of the State
will remain in the State upon obtaining medical education.
Therefore while interpreting the rule, its object has to be
upheld. In case a person who otherwise is a permanent
resident of domicile of State of Telangana is excluded from
the process of admission merely on the ground that he has
not passed the qualifying examination from the State of
Telangana, the object of the Rule would be defeated. The
permanent resident/domicile of State of Telangana may
have cleared the relevant qualifying examination for an
institution outside the State and may otherwise be eligible
cannot be denied the benefit of admission merely on the
basis of study or residence outside the State.
(IX) WHETHER RULE 3(a) HAS TO BE STRUCK DOWN/READ
DOWN:
77. Now we may advert to the issue whether the Rule 3(a)
of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission
(Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, as
amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, deserves
to be struck down or read down. A Division Bench of this
Court vide common order dated 29.08.2024 passed in
W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch has held as under
(paragraphs 88 and 89):
"88. At this stage, we may advert to the
well settled legal principles with regard to reading
down a provision. A Constitution Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Transport
Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress 14, in
paragraph 218 held as under:
218. On a proper consideration of the
cases cited hereinbefore as well as the
observations of Seervai in his
book Constitutional Law of India and also the
meaning that has been given in the Australian
Federal Constitutional Law by Colin Howard, it
is clear and apparent that where any term has
been used in the Act which per se seems to be
without jurisdiction but can be read down in
order to make it constitutionally valid by
separating and excluding the part which is
invalid or by interpreting the word in such a
fashion in order to make it constitutionally
valid and within jurisdiction of the legislature
which passed the said enactment by reading
down the provisions of the Act (sic). This,
however, does not under any circumstances
mean that where the plain and literal meaning
that follows from a bare reading of the
provisions of the Act, Rule or Regulation that it
1991 Supp (1) SCC 600
confers arbitrary, uncanalised, unbridled,
unrestricted power to terminate the services of
a permanent employee without recording any
reasons for the same and without adhering to
the principles of natural justice and equality
before the law as envisaged in Article 14 of the
Constitution, cannot (sic) be read down to save
the said provision from constitutional
invalidity by bringing or adding words in the
said legislation such as saying that it implies
that reasons for the order of termination have
to be recorded. In interpreting the provisions of
an Act, it is not permissible where the plain
language of the provision gives a clear and
unambiguous meaning can be interpreted by
reading down and presuming certain
expressions in order to save it from
constitutional invalidity. Therefore, on a
consideration of the above decisions, it is
impossible to hold by reading down the
impugned provisions of Regulation 9(b) framed
under Section 53 of the Delhi Road Transport
Act, 1950 read with Delhi Road Transport
(Amendment) Act, 1971 that the said provision
does not confer arbitrary, unguided,
unrestricted and uncanalised power without
any guidelines on the authority to terminate
the services of an employee without
conforming to the principles of natural justice
and equality as envisaged in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. I am, therefore,
constrained to uphold the judgment of the
Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 1422 of 1985
and dismiss Civil Appeal No. 2876 of 1985.
I allow Civil Appeal No. 1115 of 1976 and agree
with the order proposed to be passed thereon
by the learned Chief Justice. The other appeals
as referred to in detail in the judgment of the
learned Chief Justice be placed before the
Division Bench of this Court to be disposed of
in accordance with the observations made
herein. I agree with conclusion arrived of by
my learned brother K. Ramaswamy, J.
89. The aforesaid decision was referred to with
approval in B.R.Enterprises v. State of Uttar
Pradesh 15. The decision in B.R.Enterprises
(supra) was referred to with approval in Union of
India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories 16. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation (supra) reversed the decision of
Gujarat High Court which struck down Rule 7 of
the Rules and instead read it down."
78. The golden rule of interpretation is of respecting the
wisdom of the legislature on the ground that they are
aware of the law and would never have intended for an
invalid legislation. In somewhat similar fact situation, the
(1999) 9 SCC 700
(2011) 4 SCC 635
Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
(supra) with a view to iron out the creases in the impugned
rule i.e., Rule 7 of the Rules therein interpreted the Rule in
the manner indicated in paragraph 14 of the Judgment
referred to supra. Similar view was taken by the Division
Bench of Bombay High Court in Rajiv Purshottam
Wadhwa (supra) and Rule 4.4 of Maharashtra Rules were
read down to include permanent residents of the State of
Maharashtra.
79. At this stage, we may take note of the decision of the
Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
(supra). In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court
considered the validity of Rule 6(i) and Rule 7 of the Rules
for admission to Smt N.H.L.Municipal Medical College.
Rule 7 of the Rules confined admission to 85% of the
students who had studied in educational institutions
within the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The validity
of the said Rule was challenged before the Gujarat High
Court. The High Court vide the judgment dated 12.05.1999
struck down Rule 7 of the Rules on the ground that
classification made by Rule 7 providing admission to local
students to the extent of 85% only from the educational
institutions situated within the Ahmedabad Municipal
limits was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, the aforesaid Rule 7 was struck down.
The Supreme Court in paragraph 10 has held as under:
"10. But the question in this case is slightly
different from the law laid down in the above-cited
cases. Under Rule 7 of the impugned rules, "a local
student" is defined as a student who has passed
SSC/New SSC Examination and the qualifying
examination from any of the high schools or colleges
situated within the Ahmedabad municipal limits. As
per this rule, it is only those students who qualify
from educational institutions situated within the
municipal limits who will be eligible to be treated as
local students. While the permanent resident students
of Ahmedabad city who for fortuitous reasons, as
stated above, happen to acquire qualification from
educational institutions situated just outside the
municipal limits, namely, AUDA, will not be eligible
for being treated as local students. The object of the
rule is to provide medical education to the students of
Ahmedabad who have acquired the necessary
qualification, their selection being based on merit. If
that be the object, can it be said that a classification
based only on the location of the educational
institution within or outside the municipal area is a
reasonable classification? In our opinion, the answer
should be in the negative. In the counter-affidavit filed
on behalf of the Ahmedabad Municipality in the writ
petition, it is stated that the Medical College in
question was established to cater to the needs of the
students of Ahmedabad city. If that be the object, in
our opinion, the same would be defeated by restricting
the definition of "local student" to those students who
have acquired their qualification from institutions
situated within the Ahmedabad municipal area,
because as has happened in this case, the actual
resident students of the Municipality whose parents
would have contributed towards the revenue of the
Ahmedabad Municipality who for reasons beyond
their control or otherwise, had acquired their
qualification from institutions situated just outside
the Ahmedabad municipal area i.e. within AUDA,
would be denied the benefit of admission to the
College which is run by the Ahmedabad Municipality.
In our opinion, confining the definition of "local
student" to only those students who acquired the
qualification from educational institutions situated
within the local area creates an artificial distinction
from amongst the students who are residents of
Ahmedabad city and those who may not be the
residents of Ahmedabad city but who have studied in
educational institutions situated in the Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation limits. We do not find any
nexus in this type of classification with the object to
be achieved. Let us test the logic of this rule with
reference to a permanent resident of Ahmedabad who
resides within the Ahmedabad municipal limits but is
employed within AUDA. Can the Municipality refuse
the benefit of its services to such a resident of the city
only on the ground that he is employed in AUDA? The
answer again can only be NO. Similarly, if the object of
the rule is to provide medical education to the
students of Ahmedabad because of its municipal
obligations then a differentia within the class of
students of Ahmedabad on the basis of their acquiring
qualifications from schools within the Ahmedabad
municipal limits or within the limits of AUDA would
be arbitrary and violative of Article 14."
80. However, in paragraphs 13 and 14, it was held as
under:
"3. Though the High Court was right in coming
to the conclusion that the rule in question does suffer
from an element of arbitrariness, we are of the opinion
that the remedy does not lie in striking down the
impugned rules the existence of which is necessary in
the larger interest of the institution as well as the
populace of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
The striking down of the rule would mean opening the
doors of the institution for admission to all the eligible
candidates in the country which would definitely be
opposed to the very object of the establishment of the
institution by a local body. It is very rarely that a local
body considers it as its duty to provide higher and
professional education. In this case, the Municipality
of Ahmedabad should be complimented for providing
medical education to its resident students for the last
30 years or more. It has complied with its
constitutional obligation by providing 15% of the seats
available to all-India merit students. Its desire to
provide as many seats as possible to its students is a
natural and genuine desire emanating from its
municipal obligations which deserves to be upheld to
the extent possible. Therefore, with a view to protect
the laudable object of the Municipality, we deem it
necessary to give the impugned rule a reasonable and
practical interpretation and uphold its validity.
14. Before proceeding to interpret Rule 7 in the
manner which we think is the correct interpretation,
we have to bear in mind that it is not the jurisdiction
of the court to enter into the arena of the legislative
prerogative of enacting laws. However, keeping in
mind the fact that the rule in question is only a
subordinate legislation and by declaring the rule ultra
vires, as has been done by the High Court, we would
be only causing considerable damage to the cause for
which the Municipality had enacted this rule. We,
therefore, think it appropriate to rely upon the famous
and oft-quoted principle relied on by Lord Denning in
the case of Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher [(1949)
2 All ER 155 (CA)] wherein he held:
"[W]hen a defect appears a Judge cannot
simply fold his hands and blame the
draftsman. He must set to work on the
constructive task of finding the intention of
Parliament ... and then he must
supplement the written word so as to give
'force and life' to the intention of the
legislature. ... A Judge should ask himself
the question how, if the makers of the Act
had themselves come across this ruck in
the texture of it, they would have
straightened it out? He must then do as
they would have done. A Judge must not
alter the material of which the Act is
woven, but he can and should iron out the
creases."
This statement of law made by Lord Denning has
been consistently followed by this Court starting in
the case of M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa [AIR
1961 SC 1107] and followed as recently as in the case
of S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 596,
608 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 792 : AIR 1996 SC 2184, 2188]
(SCC at 608 : AIR at p. 2188). Thus, following the
above rule of interpretation and with a view to iron out
the creases in the impugned rule which offends Article
14, we interpret Rule 7 as follows:
"Local student means a student who has
passed HSC (sic SSC)/New SSC
Examination and the qualifying
examination from any of the high schools or
colleges situated within the Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation limits and includes a
permanent resident student of the
Ahmedabad Municipality who acquires the
above qualifications from any of the high
schools or colleges situated within the
Ahmedabad Urban Development Area.""
81. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was allowed
and Rule 7, which was interpreted in the manner indicated
in paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Supreme Court,
was upheld.
82. The Supreme Court in Meenakshi Malik (supra) dealt
with a case of a candidate who had prosecuted her studies
from classes 1st to 10th in Delhi and completed her classes
11th and 12th examinations from a foreign country as her
father was posted on deputation by the Government to a
foreign country. The claim of the aforesaid petitioner for
treating her as a local candidate was rejected on the
ground that she failed to fulfil the requirement of study of
last two years of her education i.e., classes 11 and 12 in
Delhi. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 4 and 5 has held
as under:
"4. It seems to us that the qualifying condition
that a candidate appearing for the Entrance
Examination for admission to a Medical College in
Delhi should have received the last two years of
education in a school in Delhi is unreasonable
when applied in the case of those candidates who
were compelled to leave India for a foreign
country by reason of the posting of the parent by
the Government to such foreign country. There is
no real choice in the matter for such a student,
and in many cases the circumstances of the
student do not permit her to continue schooling
in India. It is, of course, theoretically possible for
a student to be put into a hostel to continue her
schooling in Delhi. But in many cases this may
not be feasible and the student must accompany
a parent to the foreign country. It appears to us
that the rigour of the condition prescribing that
the last two years of education should be received
in a school in Delhi should be relaxed, and there
should be no insistance on the fulfilment of that
condition, in the case of students of parents who
are transferred to a foreign country by the
Government and who are therefore required to
leave India along with them. Rules are intended
to be reasonable, and should take into account
the variety of circumstances in which those whom
the rules seek to govern find themselves. We are
of opinion that the condition in the prescription of
qualifications for admission to a medical college
in Delhi providing that the last two years of
education should be in a school in Delhi should
be construed as not applicable to students who
have to leave India with their parents on the
parent being posted to a foreign country by the
Government.
5. Accordingly, the denial of admission to the
petitioner to a seat in one of the Medical Colleges
in Delhi must be held to be unreasonable. It is
not disputed that if the condition of schooling for
the last two years in a school in Delhi is removed
from the way, the petitioner would be entitled to
admission in a Medical College in Delhi. In the
circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to an
order directing the respondents to admit her to
one of the Medical Colleges in Delhi."
83. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that petitioner
had no real choice and could not continue her schooling in
Delhi as her father was posted to a foreign country on
deputation. It was further held that rigour of condition
prescribing that last two years education should be
received in a school in Delhi should be relaxed and it was
further held that the rules are intended to be reasonable
and the prescription of classification for admission to
medical colleges in Delhi deserves to be relaxed in case of
candidates who had to leave the country with their parents
being posted to a foreign country by the government.
84. An interpretation which advances the object and
purpose of the Act has to be preferred. The object of Rule
3(a) of the 2017 Rules, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33,
dated 19.07.2024, 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 situate in the State of Telangana and the
domicile/permanent residents of State of Telangana would
be deprived of the benefit of admission. Therefore, we read
down the Rule 3(a) and 3(iii) of the Telangana Medical and
Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS
Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33,
dated 19.07.2024. It is held that the aforesaid Rule shall
not apply to permanent residents of the State of Telangana.
Thus, by reading down the Rule 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.
(X) DIRECTIONS:
85. At this stage, we take note of the statement made by
the learned Advocate General that the petitioner in
W.P.No.22658 of 2024 shall be treated as local candidate.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Meenakshi Malik (supra), it is directed that the petitioner
in W.P.No.22658 of 2024 shall be treated as local
candidate and if she is otherwise eligible, shall be admitted
to MBBS/BDS course as per the eligibility.
86. It is also pertinent to note that the Division Bench of
this Court in the common order dated 29.08.2023 passed
in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch had relied on the
decisions of the Bombay High Court in Rajiv Purshottam
Wadhwa (supra) and the Karnataka High Court in
B.Mahadevaiah (supra). The said decisions have attained
finality. It is also not in dispute that the common order
29.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch by
the Division Bench of this High Court has also attained
finality.
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 as a
permanent resident of the State of Telangana. The cases of
the petitioners/students who claim to be eligible under the
aforesaid guidelines/rules, which may be framed by the
State Government, shall be considered by the University by
application of those guidelines/rules in the facts and
circumstances of each case.
88. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
______________________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
05.09.2024
Note: LR copy be marked.
(By order)
vs/pln
Issue C.C today.
B/o.
vs
