Telangana High Court

Chippada Bhanuprasanna vs The State Of Telangana on 10 February, 2025

      *THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                  AND
           *THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

 +WRIT PETITION Nos.1255, 1359, 2493, 2501, 2506 and 2507 of
                           2025
% 10-02-2025

#Chemudugunta Neeharika and others.                     ...Petitioners
vs.
$The State of Telangana and another.
                                                        ... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners:
                             Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
                             representing Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Sri S.
                             Abhaya Kumar Sagar and Sri Anjanayulu
                             Yadanaboyina, learned counsel for the
                             petitioners.

^Counsel for Respondents:
                            1. Sri A. Sudharshan Reddy, learned
                            Advocate General for the State of Telangana.
                            2. Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel for Kaloji
                            Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1.(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3184
2.(2004) 6 SCC 689
3.(2025) SCC OnLine SC 15
4.(2019) 7 SCC 584
5.(2004) 9 SCC 481
6.2013 (2) Mh.L.J
7.(1990) 3 SCC 130
8.(1994) 5 SCC 244
9.(2018) 10 SCC 312
10.AIR 1968 SC 647
11.(2003) 3 SCC 485
12.(2003) 2 SCC 111
13.2010 (2) Mh.L.J
14.(2019) 15 SCC 664
                                      2




         IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                              HYDERABAD
                                  ****
     WRIT PETITION Nos.1255, 1359, 2493, 2501, 2506 and 2507 of
                                   2025
             (Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Between:
Chemudugunta Neeharika and others.                    ...Petitioners
vs.
The State of Telangana and another.
                                                      ... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 10.02.2025


       THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
              THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA


1.      Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
        may be allowed to see the Judgments?    :

2.      Whether the copies of judgment may be
        Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?       :

3.      Whether His Lordship wishes to
        see the fair copy of the Judgment?      :

                                                    ___________________
                                                    SUJOY PAUL, ACJ



                                                     __________________
                                                     RENUKA YARA, J
                                   3




THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                      AND
     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

      WRIT PETITION Nos.1255, 1359, 2493, 2501, 2506 and
                     2507 of 2025


COMMON ORDER:

(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice)

Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved,

these matters were analogously heard and decided by this

common order.

Facts:-

2. The facts are taken from W.P.No.1255 of 2025. The

petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and constitutionality

of Clause 4.2 of the prospectus which according to her has an

adverse impact on the prospects of the petitioner. The petitioner

studied from 1st standard to 12th standard in the State of Andhra

Pradesh and completed 12th standard in the year 2016. She

appeared for NEET UG 2016 and secured admission through 'B'

category on merit basis and allotted to Mallareddy Medical College

for Women's, Hyderabad, Telangana, for academic year 2016-17.

Accordingly, she completed her MBBS course and passed Final

examination in the month of April, 2021 with registration number

1601020028. She also completed her one year compulsory

rotatory internship in the same college from 01.06.2021 and

31.05.2022. Though, she appeared for NEET PG 2022 and 2023,

she could not secure good score.

3. The National Board of Examination in Medical Science

(NBEMS) has issued Notification for Admission to Post Graduate

courses NEET PG 2024 on 16.04.2024, exam was conducted on

11.08.2024 and results were declared on 23.08.2024. The

petitioner appeared for the said examination with registration

number PG24086163 and secured All India Rank of 51285. The

petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste (SC) (Mala) Community and

holds caste certificate issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh

dated 24.04.2024, which certifies that she belongs to Mala (SC)

Community, which is recognized as Scheduled Community/Caste

under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, Schedule

Caste and Schedule Tribe List (Modification) Order, 1956 and the

Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Amendment) Act, 1976 as

amended from time to time.

4. On 30.10.2024, Respondent No.2 issued prospectus for

admissions into PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses under

the Competent Quota for 2024-2025. On the same day, a

notification was also issued stating that online applications and

certificates uploading shall begin at 06:00 AM on 31.10.2024 and

close at 06:00 PM on 07.11.2024. Pursuant to the said

notification, the petitioner registered for postgraduate medical

admission under competent quota for the academic year 2024-25

by paying requisite fee.

5. The petitioner is not treated to be 'local candidate' in view of

hurdle created by Rule VIII of the Telangana Medical Colleges

(Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021, as

amended by G.O.Ms.No.148, dated 28.10.2024. Aggrieved, the

petitioner assailed the said Rule in W.P.No.31317 of 2024, which

was decided on 17.12.2024. In obedience of judgment of Division

Bench in the said Writ Petition, the petitioner was treated as 'local

candidate', but her caste certificate issued by the Government of

Andhra Pradesh was not accepted. In the result, the petitioner

was treated to be general category candidate and benefit of

reservation was not given to her. The impugned Clause 4.2

became part of the prospectus with effect from 16.04.2024,

whereas the admission process began much before that.

Contention of the petitioners:-

6. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions have assailed the

prospectus and action of respondents in not treating SC caste

certificate of 'Mala' community issued by the authorities of the

Andhra Pradesh State for twin reasons. Firstly, on the basis of

recent Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case

of Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court 1, it is submitted

that the rules of the game cannot be permitted to be altered in the

midst of the game. In view of this Constitution Bench judgment,

the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court that the said

principle may be made applicable in the case of employment and

not in matters relating to education is incorrect. Secondly, the

States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana came into being from

unified erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. 'Mala' is a notified SC

community in both the States. In this peculiar factual backdrop,

there is no justification in not accepting the caste certificate of

same community issued by the authorities of the Andhra Pradesh

for the admission in the State of Telangana. More-so, when the

Apex Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi v.

Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd. 2, State, Central Bureau

of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar 3 and State of Madhya

Pradesh v. Lafarge Dealers Association 4, opined that the

erstwhile laws would be in force in the new State unless altered,

repealed or amended in accordance with law. Since no exclusion

(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3184

(2004) 6 SCC 689

(2025) SCC OnLine SC 15

(2019) 7 SCC 584

of 'Mala' caste took place in the State of Telangana and said caste

is in SC category in both the States, the petitioner has valuable

and enforceable constitutional right to enjoy reservation based on

the aforesaid caste certificate.

7. Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners, placed further reliance on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v.

State of Maharashtra 5 and the judgment of Bombay High Court

in the case of Preeti Gopal Rao Kable v. State of Maharashtra 6,

to bolster the submission that when reserved community is

notified in both the States, the petitioners cannot be deprived from

the fruits of caste certificate and reservation in the State of

Telangana.

Contention of the respondents:

8. Sri A. Sudharshan Reddy, learned Advocate General for the

State of Telangana, on the other hand, submits that prospectus is

issued every year. Any clause of previous prospectus will not

create any enforceable right in favour of the petitioners. More-so,

when the question involved and right claimed is governed by a

(2004) 9 SCC 481

2013 (2) Mh.L.J

constitutional provision namely Article 341/342 of the

Constitution. By placing reliance on the Information Bulletin

'NEET-PG 2024', it is urged that different States have different

eligibility criteria and reservation policies. State

Government/Counselling authorities were requested to create

their own application forms customized to their requirements to

determine the eligibility of the candidates for opting for seats in

the concerned State based on their eligibility criteria, reservation

policies, benefit to in-service candidates and benefit to candidates

who have undergone rural/difficult area postings.

9. Heavy reliance is placed on three Constitution Bench

judgments of the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekar Rao

v. Dean, Seth G.S.Medical College 7, Action Committee v.

Union of India 8 and Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board 9. It was urged

that in these judgments, it was poignantly held that even if a

particular caste is reserved category caste in both the States,

unless a specific certificate is issued by the Competent Authority

of the particular State where the selection is taking place, the

certificate issued by another State is not acceptable.

(1990) 3 SCC 130

(1994) 5 SCC 244

(2018) 10 SCC 312

10. Learned Advocate General also placed reliance on the

definition of 'law' as per Section 2 (f) of the Andhra Pradesh

Reorganisation Act, 2014 ('Reorganisation Act') and referred the

same to show that the laws prevailing earlier will continue only for

ten years as per the Presidential Order. Thus, any stipulation in

previous prospectus issued within those ten years permitting

caste certificate of the other State will not create any right in

favour of the petitioners. A conjoint reading of Section 95 of the

Reorganisation Act, Article 371-D of the Constitution and the

Presidential Order, leaves no room for any doubt that the benefit

of the caste certificate issued by the Government of Andhra

Pradesh does not confer caste status on the petitioners for

selection in the State of Telangana.

11. No other point is pressed.

12. We have heard at length and perused the record.

13. During the course of hearing, the parties jointly submitted

that the legal question in these batch of matters are similar and

only in W.P.No.1359 of 2025, the caste certificate was issued in

the year 2013 i.e., at the time of unified State of Andhra Pradesh.

Findings:-

14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has filed written

legal submissions in addition. It is apposite to reproduce the

relevant portion, which reads thus:

"I. It is submitted that a prospectus is not law and not even executive instruction, but is merely a handbook for students given by the concerned University. It is submitted in such a case a prospectus cannot remove or determine whether caste certificates given by the residual State of Andhra Pradesh may be applicable in the bifurcated State of Telangana. Only statute or delegated legislation in the form of Rules may seek to determine constitutionally protected in the form of caste certificate and an ordinary prospectus cannot determine whether caste certificate of the residual State of Andhra Pradesh may or may not be applicable in the State of Telangana."

(Emphasis Supplied)

15. It is noteworthy that challenge in these Writ Petitions is to

Clause 4.2 of the prospectus dated 30.10.2024, which in the

opinion of the petitioners itself is neither law nor an executive

instruction. As projected by the petitioners, in the previous

prospectus, the caste certificate issued by the State of Andhra

Pradesh was admissible in the State of Telangana and this

provision is changed in Clause 4.2 of the impugned prospectus.

In this backdrop, the argument based on Tej Prakash Pathak

(supra) was developed by contending that rule of game cannot be

permitted to be changed midway and to the detriment of the

candidate. In view of the stand of the petitioners themselves, the

prospectus cannot be treated as law or executive instruction or

Rule. Thus, the principle of changing the rule of game midway

and judgment in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) cannot

be pressed into service.

16. The matter may be viewed from another angle. Even

assuming that impugned clause of the prospectus has some force,

by no stretch of imagination, it can have more force than the

constitutional provision i.e., Article 341 of the Constitution, which

reads thus:

"Article 341. Scheduled Castes:-

(1)The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or group within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.

(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification."

(Emphasis Supplied)

17. The words 'in relation to that State' used in Article 341 (1)

are of great significance and importance. In the light of this

expression, the question cropped up before the Constitution

Bench in Marri Chandra Shekar Rao (supra) is whether the

petitioner therein can claim the benefit of being an Schedule Tribe

(ST) in the State of Maharashtra though he had, as he states, an

ST Certificate in the State of Andhra Pradesh? Pertinently, in the

said case, the petitioner therein belonged to Goudi, also known as

Gouda community, which is a Schedule Tribe Community in the

State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner therein participated in

the selection in MBBS course in local colleges run by Bombay

Municipal Corporation/State of Maharashtra. Indubitably, ST

candidates of Maharashtra, who secured lesser marks than the

petitioner therein, were admitted. The litigation originated

because of the said reason and petitioner therein claimed that the

caste certificate issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh must be

honoured in the State of Maharashtra. The Apex Court opined as

under:

"22. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the medical college on the basis of Scheduled Tribe Certificate in Maharashtra. In the view we have taken, the question of petitioner's right to be admit- ted as being domicile does not fall for consideration."

(Emphasis Supplied)

18. Another Constitution Bench in Action Committee (supra)

followed the ratio decidendi of judgment of Marri Chandra Shekar

Rao (supra) and opined that the caste certificate issued by one

State cannot be used in another State. Despite the fact that

relevant community in both the States is notified as reserved

community. Both the aforesaid Constitution Bench judgments

were again considered by another Constitution Bench in Bir

Singh (supra) and the Court after following the dicta of previous

judgments opined as under:

"24. Whenever States' reorganisation had taken place in the past, Parliament had exercised its powers under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) and provided for specific Castes/Tribes that were entitled to be recognised as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the reorganised States/Union Territories. The Scheme of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) and (Scheduled Tribes) Orders makes it clear that Parliament's intention was to extend the benefits of reservation in relation to the States/Union Territories only to the castes, races or tribes as mentioned in the Presidential Orders."

(Emphasis Supplied)

19. In paragraph No.34 of the said judgment, it was poignantly

held as under:

"34. Unhesitatingly, therefore, it can be said that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other State to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education. The expressions "in relation to that State or Union Territory" and "for the purpose of this Constitution" used in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India would mean that the benefits of reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand confined to the geographical territories of a State/Union Territory in respect of which the lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been notified by the Presidential Orders issued from time to time. A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State 'A' cannot claim the same status in another State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled Caste in State 'A'."

(Emphasis Supplied)

20. In view of these binding Constitution Bench judgments,

there is no manner of doubt that caste certificate issued by the

State of Andhra Pradesh is not acceptable for the selection in

question in State of Telangana.

21. As per G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 22.01.2015, the Government of

Telangana specified the communities and competent authorities,

who can issue caste certificates. The relevant portion reads thus:

Annexure -I Column I Column 2 Column 3 Sl.No. Specified Competent Jurisdiction Community Authorities Scheduled Castes

34. Mala, mala All Tahsildars in Within the Ayawaru the State not below Territorial the Rank of Deputy Jurisdiction of a Tahsildars Mandal

35. Mala Dasari -do- -do-

36. Mala Dasu -do- -do-

37. Mala Hannai All Revenue Territorial Officials not below Jurisdiction of a the Rank of a Revenue Division RDO/Sub- held by RDO/Sub-

Collector/or Asst. Collector/Assistant Collector in the Collector State

38. Malajangam -do- -do-

39. Mala Masti -do- -do-

40. Mala Sale, All Tahsildars in Within the Nethani the State not below Territorial the Rank of Deputy Jurisdiction of a Tahsildars Mandal

41. Mala Sanyasi All Revenue Territorial Officials not below Jurisdiction of a the Rank of a Revenue Division RDO/Sub- held by RDO/Sub-

                           Collector/or Asst.    Collector/Assistant
                           Collector in the      Collector
                           State

22. Admittedly, the caste certificates of the petitioners have not

been issued by the said competent authorities of the State of

Telangana. For this reason also, their caste certificates cannot be

pressed into service in the selection in question.

23. So far, the judgments in A. Satish Kumar and Swarn

Rekha Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd (both supra) on which heavy

reliance is placed are concerned, suffice it to say that both the

judgments are not dealing with the question of caste certificates.

The judgment in A. Satish Kumar (supra) was arising out of

criminal proceedings, whereas the judgment in Swarn Rekha

Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd (supra) deals with exemption/concession

/rebate under sales tax of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.

24. The three Constitution Bench Judgments in Marri Chandra

Shekar Rao, Action Committee and Bir Singh (all supra) are

directly on the point dealing with the questions involved in the

present batch of matters. Thus, we are bound by the Constitution

Bench judgments which clearly deal with the question in hand. It

is trite that precedent is what is actually decided by the Court and

not what is logically flowing from it (see State of Orissa v.

Sudhansu Sekhar Misra 10 and Chanchal Goyal (Dr) v. State of

Rajasthan 11). It is equally settled that a singular different fact or

point involved in a matter may change the precedential value of

the judgment (see Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill

(P) Ltd 12). Thus, the judgments in the case of A. Satish Kumar

and Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd. (both supra) are of

no assistance to the petitioners.

25. The petitioner also placed reliance on the Division Bench

judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Preeti Gopal Rao

Kamble (supra) and Shweta Santalal Lal v. State of

Maharashtra 13, wherein the Constitution Bench judgments in

Marri Chandra Shekar Rao, Action Committee and Sudhakar

Vithal Kumbhare (relied upon by the petitioners) (all supra) were

also considered and the Full Bench opined as under:

"23. We propose to deal with each of the conclusions.

(i) to (ix)...

(x) Insofar as conclusion (x) is concerned, having explained the Judgment in Sudhakar's case which is the Judgment of the Bench of three Judges and the two Constitution Bench Judgments in Marri Chandrashekhar and Action Committee, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes from any locality which has been divided upon Reorganization of States and such caste or tribe is also

AIR 1968 SC 647

(2003) 3 SCC 485

(2003) 2 SCC 111

2010 (2) Mh.L.J

recognized as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in the newly formed State, such migrant would not be entitled to benefit of reservation in the State of migration but would be entitled only of benefit in the State of origin."

(Emphasis Supplied)

26. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is clear that curtains on

the question involved are finally drawn by the three Constitution

Bench judgments of the Supreme Court and the same view is

followed in Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand 14.

27. In view of these Constitution Bench judgments (supra), we

are unable to persuade ourselves that the caste certificate issued

by the State of Andhra Pradesh can confer any constitutional or

vested right to the petitioners to enjoy the caste status in the State

of Telangana.

28. The case of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.1359 of 2025 must

meet the same fate because after formation of the States of