Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1148 (TS)

Abotula Brindaraka v. State of Telangana

2025-10-06

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, G.M.MOHIUDDIN

body2025
ORDER: Heard Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health for respondent No.1; Sri G.Praveen Kumar, Assistant Government Pleader for Sports for respondent No.2; Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-University and perused the record. 2. This writ petition is filed by a student and a National Level Fencing player, who has qualified for NEET-UG 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus (i) to declare the inaction of the Kaloji Narayana University of Health Sciences (for short ‘KNRUHS’) in considering the email representations of the petitioner dated 15.01.2025 and 28.08.2025 as illegal; (ii) to declare the debarment of three years and penalty of Rs.20 lakhs imposed as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; (iii) to declare the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in NEET 2025 Category-A counselling, and (iv) to extend the benefit of reservation under the Sports Quota as per G.O.Ms.No.114 (HM&FW) Department, dated 05.07.2017, with a carry-forward of the COVID-19 affected years (2020-2021). Factual Matrix 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as chronicled in the petition, are that the petitioner qualified in NEET-UG 2024 and was allotted an MBBS seat under the Management Quota (Category-B) in the Mop-Up round of counselling for the academic year 2024-25. He failed to join the allotted College. Consequently, vide letter dated 28.12.2024, the University invoked the penalty clause and imposed a penalty of Rs.20 lakhs and a three-year debarment from admission to MBBS/BDS courses in the State of Telangana. 4. That the petitioner also qualified in the NEET-UG 2025 exam but was unable to apply due to the three-year debarment and the penalty of Rs.20 lakhs. 5. That the Government of Telangana had notified 0.5% reservation for sportspersons in MBBS/BDS courses under G.O.Ms.No.114 Department, dated 05.07.2017. 6. That when the Government of Telangana by G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 22.09.2020 wanted to withdraw the Sports Quota in MBBS/BDS without amending the statutory rules, framed under G.O.Ms.No.114 Department, dated 05.07.2017, this Court in W.P.No.38738 of 2022 quashed the portion of the Government Order withdrawing the Sports Quota and restored the 0.5% reservation. Contentions of the petitioner 7. 6. That when the Government of Telangana by G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 22.09.2020 wanted to withdraw the Sports Quota in MBBS/BDS without amending the statutory rules, framed under G.O.Ms.No.114 Department, dated 05.07.2017, this Court in W.P.No.38738 of 2022 quashed the portion of the Government Order withdrawing the Sports Quota and restored the 0.5% reservation. Contentions of the petitioner 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s failure to join MBBS course in the allotted college was due to "financial difficulties" and lack of proper notice regarding the penalty clause; that the imposition of the penalty is excessively severe, contrary to principles of equity and justice, and the same also infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that despite of the existence of a statutory 0.5% Sports Quota reservation under G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 05.07.2017, which was upheld by this Court in Ravula Laxmi Reddy v. State of Telangana in W.P. No. 38738 of 2022, dated 04.01.2023, the petitioner claims that respondent No.3-KNRUHS has not provided a functional online mechanism to apply under this Quota in its 2024 or 2025 counselling process, and contends that this omission effectively denied him his right to be considered for admission under this category. Analysis and Reasoning 9. This Court in a pervious writ petition vide W.P. No.12797 of 2025, challenging the imposition of the penalty of Rs.20 lakhs and debarment for a period of three years as illegal, rendered its determination upholding the imposition of monetary penalty of Rs.20 lakhs and debarment for a period of three years, and this Court affirms the same view in the present matter. Issue of penalty and debarment: 10. It is to be noted that the admission process, governed by G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 05.07.2017, as amended from time to time, is a structured and transparent mechanism. The amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 22.09.2022 specifically enhanced the penalty from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs and explicitly mandated debarment for three years for candidates, who, after being allotted a seat from the second phase of counselling onwards, fail to join. This amendment was a conscious policy decision to curb the pernicious practice of "seat blocking," which deprives meritorious candidates of opportunities. This amendment was a conscious policy decision to curb the pernicious practice of "seat blocking," which deprives meritorious candidates of opportunities. Further, the petitioner's plea of ignorance of this rule is an act of desperation, as the rules and notifications are published in the public domain, and every candidate is expected to participate in the process with due diligence. 11. It is also to be noted that the petitioner’s act of accepting a seat in a Mop-Up round and then not joining is not a mere lapse; it is an act that has a cascading effect, as the said act blocks a seat that could have been allotted to another deserving and waiting candidate, and thereby disrupts the entire admission schedule, and ultimately benefits private managements by allowing seats to be converted. 12. Further, the enhanced penalty of Rs.20 lakhs is intended to be prohibitive, ensuring that candidates do not treat seat allotment as a casual option to be accepted or rejected at will. The contention of the petitioner of financial hardship, while evoking sympathy, cannot be a ground to scrap away a rule designed for the larger public good. 13. It is trite law, settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, that the process of admissions to professional medical courses is not a matter of private contract between an individual and an institution. It is a highly regulated state activity conducted in the nature of a trust for the benefit of all eligible candidates. The timeline for each phase of counselling from the first round to the Mop-Up round is sacrosanct. The entire competitive process is built on the bedrock of certainty, fairness and estimation of subjective discretion. Any relaxation/deviation for one candidate, however genuine his reason may seem, or even if motivated by sympathy, would have a cascading effect, jeopardizing the chances of other candidates waiting in the queue and undermining the finality of the process thereby compromising the integrity of the system. Reference can be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh , (2002) 7 SCC 258 regarding the importance of adhering to schedules in academic matters. 14. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Md. Reference can be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh , (2002) 7 SCC 258 regarding the importance of adhering to schedules in academic matters. 14. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Md. Rizwan Arfath and others v. State of Telangana and others in W.P. No. 40116 of 2022 and batch, dated 16.11.2022 to contend that the imposition of penalty of Rs.20 lakhs is illegal, it is to be noted that the core reasoning in said judgment was the failure of the University to produce the bonds allegedly executed by the students. The Court held that in the absence of the foundational document i.e., the bond, the penalty could not be enforced. However, in the present case, the penalty is not being enforced based on a bond but is a statutory consequence flowing directly from the amended rules in G.O.Ms.No.125. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment, which was rendered in a different factual context and circumstances, is not applicable to the facts of the case and does not advance the case of the petitioner. 15. A law or rule is not arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, if it is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The classification here is between candidates who comply with the reporting conditions to join the MBBS/BDS course on allotment of a seat and those who do not. This classification is intelligible and has a direct nexus with the object of ensuring a smooth, fair, and final admission process. The rule applies uniformly to all candidates in the same situation. Therefore, it cannot be said to suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. 16. In regard to the petitioner's challenge against the severity of the penalty of debarment for a period of three years, it is to be noted that, the Doctrine of Proportionality requires the Court to examine whether the restriction imposed by a rule is disproportionate to the object it seeks to achieve. The object here is crystal clear: to deter candidates from accepting a seat without a firm intention to join, thereby blocking a seat that could have gone to another candidate. "Seat blocking" is a serious menace that disrupts the entire allocation process and is detrimental to the larger student community. The object here is crystal clear: to deter candidates from accepting a seat without a firm intention to join, thereby blocking a seat that could have gone to another candidate. "Seat blocking" is a serious menace that disrupts the entire allocation process and is detrimental to the larger student community. The penalty of debarment for three years, though severe, is a calibrated response to this persistent problem. It is intended to impress upon candidates the gravity of the commitment they make when they consciously exercise their web options. It is not a punitive measure in isolation but a protective measure for the system as a whole. The increase in the monetary penalty to Rs.20 lakhs by the 2022 amendment underscores the seriousness with which the legislature views this issue. We find the penalty to be proportionate to the legitimate aim it seeks to achieve. Issue in regard to the implementation of Sports Quota as per G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 05.07.2017: 17. The penalty of debarment of three years having been upheld by this Court, the question of implementation of Sports Quota reservation to the candidates for admission to MBBS and BDS courses for the year academic year 2025-2026, has been rendered academic in view of the fact that the petitioner has already been debarred for a period of three academic years vide letter dated 28.12.2024. 18. Further, this Court is of the view that the petitioner’s plea to "carry forward" the years 2020 and 2021 on account of the COVID-19 lockdown is a policy matter beyond its jurisdiction, as it is not within this Court's domain to prescribe any specific "carry-forward" formula. Further, the petitioner’s comparison of the Sports Quota with Army or Physically Handicapped Quota’s is misplaced, as the nature and eligibility criteria of these Quotas are fundamentally distinct. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. Conclusion 19. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the action of the respondents in imposing a penalty of Rs.20 lakhs and debarring the petitioner for three years is neither illegal and arbitrary nor unconstitutional. It is a valid application of a rule designed to preserve the sanctity of a high-stakes admission process. 20. We also hold that this Court cannot direct the respondents to implement the Sports Quota for the academic year 2025- 2026 by carrying forward the COVID-19 affected years (2021- 2022). It is a valid application of a rule designed to preserve the sanctity of a high-stakes admission process. 20. We also hold that this Court cannot direct the respondents to implement the Sports Quota for the academic year 2025- 2026 by carrying forward the COVID-19 affected years (2021- 2022). Therefore, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.