Bhairu Naresh vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5563 Tel

Telangana High Court

Bhairu Naresh vs The State Of Telangana on 18 September, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                                   AND

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

                  WRIT PETITION No. 27787 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Ms. K.Swapna Madhuri, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for

respondent No.1, Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for

Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences appearing for

respondent No.2 and perused the record.

2. This writ petition, is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, with the following prayer viz.,

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No 2 in not treating the petitioner as Local candidate for admission into MBBS/BDS for the academic year 2025-26 in pursuant to NEET (UG) 2025 despite receipt of petitioner's representation dated 10.09.2025 as being illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to treat the petitioner as a Local candidate for all the purposes of Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses for the Academic year 2025-26 under the aegis of KNR University of Health Sciences, Telangana State and to pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner completed his Class I to X at Nidamanoor Mandal,

Nalgonda District in Telangana State. However, pursued his

Intermediate i.e., Class XI and XII from Vijayawada in the State

of Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, after he was qualified NEET

(UG)-2025 he sought admission under the 'Competent Authority

Quota' which is reserved for local candidates.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the underlying writ

petition contends as follows:

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

ii. that the said requirement contradicts and violates the binding directions of this Court in order dated 05.09.2024 in W.P.No.21910 of 2024 and Batch and in order dated 29.08.2023 in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and Batch wherein this

Court has held that a residence certificate is sufficient for categorization as a local candidate.

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

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

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

6. It is pertinent to note that though the learned counsel for

the petitioner has vehemently contended and relied on the

judgments of this Court in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and Batch,

dated 29.08.2023 and in W.P.No.21910 of 2024 and Batch,

dated 05.09.2024, wherein it was held the previous incarnation

of Rule 3(a) to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution, interpreting 'local candidate' to mean a candidate

whose 'domicile' is Telangana or who is a 'permanent resident' of

the State. However, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid

legal position is unequivocal and does not support the

petitioner's case, as the aforesaid judgments which have been

relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner were stayed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.09.2024 in

SLP(C) Nos.21536-21588 of 2024. Further, the learned

counsel's assertion that the SLPs were dismissed thereby

upholding the view taken by this Court is factually incorrect.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Telangana and

others v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and others 1

while setting aside the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023 of

this Court, has categorically held as under:

31. For all the reasons noticed above, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023 of the High Court of Telangana.

33. We have already held that the pre-amended rule defining a local candidate was perfectly in order, which reasoning applies squarely to the amended rule also. There was no warrant for a reading down when the definition is clear, in consonance with the Presidential Order and similar rules having been upheld by this Court as coming out from the binding precedents. We find no reason to take a different view with respect to the amended rule also; 15% having been conceded to the All-India quota.

34. We also observe that the learned Advocate General has handed over a further amendment proposed, incorporating a proviso to Rule 3 as follows:--

I. Provided that a candidate who studies outside Telangana for any period during the requisite four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared, or as the case may be, first appeared in the relevant qualifying examination will be eligible to be considered if they fall under any of the below categories:

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1880

1. Children of employees of the Telangana State Government who have served or are serving outside Telangana corresponding to the candidate's year/s of study outside Telangana.

2. Children of serving or retired employees belonging to the Telangana cadre of All India Services (IAS/IFS/IPS) who have served or are serving outside Telangana corresponding to the candidate's year/s of study outside Telangana.

3. Children of defence personnel/ex-servicemen/Central Armed Police Force service who at the time of joining service, have declared their hometown to be in the State of Telangana and who have served or are serving outside Telangana corresponding to the candidate's year/s of study outside Telangana.

4. Children of employees of a Corporation/Agency/Instrumentality under Government of Telangana, liable to be transferred anywhere in India as per the terms and conditions of his/her employment, who have served or are serving outside Telangana corresponding to the candidate's year/s of study outside Telangana.

II. Subject to the candidate submitting Certificate of employment from the competent authority for the candidate's father/mother's service outside the State for the period corresponding to the candidate's year/s of study outside Telangana.

36. The appeals of the State and the University are allowed, setting aside both the impugned judgments in the Writ Petitions filed by the students. The Writ Petitions and the SLP filed by the students before this Court, as a consequence stand dismissed; however, with the reservation insofar as candidates who are covered by the proviso to Rule 3 as specified in paragraph 34 above. No order as to costs.

Therefore, the legal position enunciated in W.P.No.21268 of

2023 and Batch, dated 29.08.2023 and in W.P.No.21910 of

2024 and Batch, dated 05.09.2024, was suspended in the light

of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalluri Naga

Narasimha Abhiram's case (supra 1) and cannot be relied

upon as a binding precedent. Further, it is not the case of the

petitioner that he falls within the proviso to the Rule 3 of the

Rules 2017.

8. It is pertinent to note that the requirement of four

consecutive years of study or residence is a conscious policy

choice made by the State and has been designed to create a

rational and verifiable classification to identify students who

have a sustained and profound connection with the State's

educational ecosystem. This Court in its judicial review cannot

substitute its own wisdom for the legislative policy behind the

Rule unless the said Rule is manifestly arbitrary or violates the

Constitutional framework. The Rule delineates a specific class

and ensures equal treatment of all individuals within that class,

however, the petitioner does not fall within this defined class.

Therefore, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution,

as the classification is founded on an intelligible distinction and

bears a rational nexus to the legislative objective of regulating

admissions.

9. It is settled in law that the State possesses the authority

to prescribe objective, quantifiable, and rational criteria for

determining the status of a 'local area' candidate for the purpose

of admission to educational institutions, and such status does

not constitute an absolute right vested in every permanent

resident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradeep Jain v. Union of

India 2, has held 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 case [AIR 1968 SC 1012 : (1968) 2 SCR 786 : (1968) 2 SCJ 801] and Peeria-karuppan case [(1971) 1 SCC 38 : AIR 1971 SC 2303 : (1971) 2 SCR 430] the Court has in D.N. Chanchala case [(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 case [AIR 1955 SC 334 : (1955) 1 SCR 1215 : 1955 SCJ 298] and N. Vasundara case [(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

(1984) 3 SCC 654

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-