Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1041 (TS)

Maloth Tejswini v. Union of India

2025-09-17

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, G.M.MOHIUDDIN

body2025
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 4 th 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 3 rd 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 3 rd 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). C). To declare G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 08.09.2025 on the file of 3 rd 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, dated08.09.2025, 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. 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 on05.09.2024. 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 on05.09.2024. 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 ( order/INDSC00000043472">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 ( order/INDSC00000043472">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. 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, shallstand closed.