Telangana High Court
Kanagarla Sri Sai Dharma Koushik vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION Nos.27925 and 28076 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Learned Senior Counsel Sri V.R.Avula, representing
learned counsel Sri Posani Subba Rao and learned counsel
Sri Vishal Maharana, appears for the petitioners.
Learned counsel Sri K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy
appears for respondents No.1 and 2.
Ms. K.Swapna Madhuri, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family
Welfare Department, appears for respondent No.3.
Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji
Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (hereinafter
referred to as, "the University"), appears for respondent
No.4.
2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions pray for the
following relief:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying
affidavit that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue
writ or direction particularly in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ,
A). To declare the notification issued by the 4th
respondent for admission into MBBS and BDS courses
under competent authority quota for the academic year
2025-26 into medical & dental colleges affiliated to KNRUHS
in the State of Telangana, dated 15.7.2025 to the extent of
insisting the petitioners to fulfil the provisions under
G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.7.2024 and G.O.Ms.No.150 dated:
08.09.2025 of the 3rd respondent for admission into MBBS
and BDS courses under competent authority quota for the
academic year 2025-26 into medical and dental colleges
affiliated to KNRUHS in the State of Telangana as illegal,
void, arbitrary, inoperative and in violation of the mandatory
directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
SLP (C) No.21536-21588 of 2024 at (page no.28, Para
No.32) in view of the fact that the rules made in
G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024 and G.O.Ms.No.150 dated:
08.09.2025 of the 3rd respondent was not in existence by
the time the petitioners completed the qualifying the
examination of intermediate course that is prior to issuance
of the said G.Os.
B). Consequently to direct the respondents to consider
the cases of the writ petitioners for admission into MBBS
and BDS courses under competent authority quota for the
academic year 2025-2026 into medical & dental colleges
affiliated to KNRUHS in the State of Telangana by applying
Rule 3(iii)(c) of the Rules, 2017 framed under
G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.2017, on the file of the 3rd
respondent and pass such other order or orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
C). To declare G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 08.09.2025 on the
file of 3rd respondent as illegal, void, arbitrary and irrational
and also contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) 21536-21588 and others
dated: 01.09.2025 to the extent of not considering the
domicile/residence in right perspective while issuing the
said G.O and pass such other order or orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that being the
residents of Telangana or natives of Telangana, but having
studied in any other State, including the newly created
State of Andhra Pradesh, G.O.Ms.No.150, dated
08.09.2025, is bad in law so far as it does not allow them
to be treated as local candidates for the State of Telangana
for the purpose of admission to MBBS/BDS course in the
medical institutions in the State of Telangana.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have
taken this Court to G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.2017,
which was amended by G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024,
by the State of Telangana and also G.O.Ms.No.150, dated
08.09.2025, providing amendment to Rule 3(a) of the
Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admissions
(Admissions into Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of
Surgery & Bachelor of Dental Surgery Courses) Rules,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules"), in the
manner prescribed therein. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that the Apex Court has upheld G.O.Ms.No.33,
dated 19.07.2024, but G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 08.09.2025,
is bad in law to the extent it does not provide for
consideration of the persons like the petitioners for being
treated as local candidates for the purpose of admission to
MBBS/BDS course. It is also argued that most of the
students had completed their qualifying examination before
G.O.Ms.No.33 came into existence and even
G.O.Ms.No.150 came into existence. Therefore, their cases
ought to have been considered under G.O.Ms.No.114,
dated 05.07.2017. The petitioners, therefore, seek to
question the validity of G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 08.09.2025,
in particular and a declaration that they be treated as local
candidates for the purpose of admission to MBBS/BDS
course in the State of Telangana.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the University and the
Assistant Government Pleader for the State both have
strongly opposed the prayer. It is submitted that
G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, was read down by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalluri Naga
Narasimha Abhiram v. State of Telangana (W.P.No.21910
of 2024 and batch, decided on 05.09.2024). The Apex
Court, in the challenge made thereto, had by judgment
dated 01.09.2025 rendered in State of Telangana v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram (CA @ SLP (C)
Nos.21536-21588 of 2024) set aside the judgment of this
Court and upheld G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, with
the only reservation which mitigates the grievances of
those who claim that they were taken out of the State by
compulsion of the movement of their parents outside the
State by reason of employment in Government/All-India
Services/Corporations or Public Sector Undertakings
constituted as an instrumentality of the State of Telangana
as also defence and paramilitary forces who trace their
nativity to the State, subject to the conditions proposed to
be incorporated in Rule 3 of the Rules as per the
submission of the learned Advocate General before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is contended that
G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 08.09.2025, has thus been
introduced to bring G.O.Ms.No.33 in conformity with the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court. It is submitted that
the petitioners cannot fall in any of the categories
enumerated under G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, or
G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 08.09.2025, for being treated as
local candidates of the State of Telangana. Since the issue
is no longer res integra, this Court would refrain from
questioning the validity of G.O.Ms.No.150, dated
08.09.2025 afresh.
6. We have given anxious consideration to the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. To trace the genesis of the instant litigation arising
out of the enforcement of G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024,
issued by the State of Telangana by amendment to
G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.2017, we may usefully refer to
the decision of this Court rendered in a batch of writ
petitions led by W.P.No.21910 of 2024 decided on
05.09.2024. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court
by the said judgment had held that Rule 3(a) of the Rules
as amended by G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, would 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.
The Government was granted liberty to frame the
guidelines/rules to determine as to when a student can be
considered as a permanent resident of the State of
Telangana. Those writ petitions were disposed of with a
direction that the petitioners therein shall be treated as
local candidates and if otherwise eligible, shall be admitted
to MBBS/BDS course as per their eligibility. The matter
was taken to the Apex Court by the aggrieved State of
Telangana. Before the Apex Court, besides other grounds
supporting G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, it was also
submitted by the State that an amendment is proposed as
a proviso to the impugned Rule 3 of the Rules to mitigate
the grievances of those who were taken out of the State by
compulsion of the movement of their parents outside the
State by reason of employment in Government/All-India
Services/Corporations or Public Sector Undertakings
constituted as an instrumentality of the State of Telangana
as also defence and paramilitary forces who trace their
nativity to the State, subject to the conditions laid down
therein. The Apex Court, while upholding the amendment
to the Rules incorporated through G.O.Ms.No.33, dated
19.07.2024, also observed that the said proviso proposed
to be introduced to Rule 3 of the Rules should allay and
mitigate the grievances of those who claim that they were
taken out of the State by compulsion of the movement of
their parents outside the State by reason of employment in
Government/All-India Services/Corporations or Public
Sector Undertakings constituted as an instrumentality of
the State of Telangana as also defence and paramilitary
forces who trace their nativity to the State. G.O.Ms.No.150
was notified on 08.09.2025 to bring it in conformity to
what was proposed and upheld by the Apex Court in the
judgment rendered in State of Telangana v. Kalluri Naga
Narasimha Abhiram (CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21536-21588 of
2024, decided on 01.09.2025). It is, therefore, clear that
G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 08.09.2025, is a result of the
adjudicatory process which has attained finality on the
decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Telangana
v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram (CA @ SLP (C)
Nos.21536-21588 of 2024, decided on 01.09.2025).
8. The petitioners, by virtue of their claim of being
natives of the State of Telangana, but have studied
elsewhere or in the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh,
do not fall within any of the provisions contained in
G.O.Ms.No.33 or G.O.Ms.No.150.
9. Since the validity of G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024,
stands upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and
G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 08.09.2025, has been issued in light
of the decision rendered by the Apex Court, it is not open
for this Court to revisit it.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners
cannot claim to fall within the definition of "local
candidate" for the purpose of admission to MBBS/BDS
course in the State of Telangana in the medical institutions
for the session 2025-2026.
11. It is worth pointing out that this Court, following the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court Kalluri Naga
Narasimha Abhiram v. State of Telangana (W.P.No.21910
of 2024 and batch, decided on 05.09.2024), and also
taking into account that the matter was sub judice before
the Apex Court, had granted interim orders in favour of
such petitioners for making their application for admission
to MBBS/BDS course for the session 2025-2026, which
was subject to outcome of the pending matter. Since the
issue has been finally determined by the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in State of Telangana v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram (CA @ SLP (C)
Nos.21536-21588 of 2024, decided on 01.09.2025), the
petitioners herein cannot be permitted to say that the
interim orders passed in such nature would also apply in
favour of the petitioners any more.
12. Taking into consideration all the above facts and
circumstances and the reasons recorded above, we do not
find any merit in these writ petitions.
13. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
17.09.2025
vs
