Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1524 (TS)

Silamkoti Yanjleena v. State of Telangana

2025-11-17

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, G.M.MOHIUDDIN

body2025
ORDER : Since the issues that arise in the above writ petitions are integrally one and the same, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Sri S.Sai Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sujatha Kurapati, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for respondent No.1, Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare appearing for respondent No.2, Ms.L.Pranathi Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6, Ms.Ishrath Begum, learned counsel representing Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences appearing for respondent No.7 and perused the record. 3. W.P.No.22049 of 2025 has been filed by three students who are members of the National Cadet Corps (NCC). 4. W.P.No.22854 of 2025 has been filed by another student who is also the member of the NCC. 5. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the decision of the Telangana State Government to replace 1% horizontal reservation quota for NCC cadets in MBBS/BDS admissions with a system of grace marks added to their NEET- UG scores, which was enacted through G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 04.07.2023. 6. The old policy under G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 05.07.2017, provided a clear 1% reservation for NCC cadets within the horizontal reservation marks for medical admissions. 7. The new policy G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 04.07.2023 abolished the 1% quota and introduced grace marks (3% for NCC ‘B’ Certificate, 5% for camp participation and 7% for participation in Republic Day Camp) to be added to the NEET score of students. 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that the old policy under G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.2017 which provided for a dedicated 1% quota was more beneficial, than the new system of grace marks which is insufficient and less beneficial. 9. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus: i) to set aside the grace marks under G.O.Ms.No.75; ii) to restore and implement the previous 1% reservation for NCC cadets as per G.O.Ms.No.114 for the current admission cycle (2025-26); and iii) to direct the respondents to consider their representation dated 30.05.2025. 10. The main contention of the petitioners is that the replacement of assured 1% seat quota with nominal grace marks is arbitrary and violative of principles of equity and it fails to adequately recognise the sacrifices and contributions of the NCC cadets. 11. 10. The main contention of the petitioners is that the replacement of assured 1% seat quota with nominal grace marks is arbitrary and violative of principles of equity and it fails to adequately recognise the sacrifices and contributions of the NCC cadets. 11. Core contentions on behalf of the petitioners: i) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that having joined NCC and dedicated significant time and effort based on the existing 1% reservation policy under G.O.Ms.No.114, the students have a legitimate expectation that the said reservation policy would continue. The sudden change in the year 2023 by introduction of G.O.Ms.No.75 unfairly prejudices their prospects in obtaining a seat in MBBS/BDS. ii) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that replacement of a concrete 1% quota with a variable and uncertain system of grace marks is arbitrary and irrational. The system of allotment of grace marks fails to adequately recognize the sacrifices and contributions of NCC cadets, inasmuch as the grace marks may not translate into actual admissions in the MBBS/BDS course, unlike a fixed reserved seat as a result of 1% fixed quota. iii) The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the grace marks (3% for NCC 'B' Certificate, 5% for Camp participation, 7% for participation in Republic Day Camp) are a poor substitute for a reserved seat. It is argued that a dedicated quota is a more substantial and secure form of incentive for NCC cadets to undergo NCC training at the significant cost of their time. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited the case of neighbouing State of Andhra Pradesh, which through G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 16.07.2025, has implemented a system that provides both grace marks and a 1% horizontal reservation for NCC candidates for admission into MBBS/BDS course. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the camp attendance, and academic sacrifices made by NCC cadets deserves a guaranteed benefit like a fixed reservation quota and a inconsequential marginal score enhancement by awarding grace marks is not a sufficient incentive to draw students to the NCC. 12. Core contentions on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2: Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that: i) The State has the prerogative to frame and modify the education policies based on changing circumstances, expert opinion and the desired objective to achieve broader goals. 12. Core contentions on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2: Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that: i) The State has the prerogative to frame and modify the education policies based on changing circumstances, expert opinion and the desired objective to achieve broader goals. The decision to change over from 1% reservation award grace marks for attending NCC is a valid exercise of this executive power, which has been done by the State keeping in mind the larger welfare of the students. ii) the grace marks system benefits a larger number of NCC cadets by adding marks to their NEET score, allowing them to compete for all seats, rather than restricting the benefit to a very small number of cadets who can secure limited seats under the 1% quota of reserved seats. iii) the system of grace marks, verified by the NCC Directorate, is less prone to misuse compared to a reservation system, where certificate verification and relevant priority may be contentious. iv) the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners do not have a fundamental right to claim a particular mode of incentive, be it reservation or grace marks. The decision is a matter of policy and cannot be called in question, as long as it is not arbitrary or does not violate any constitutional mandate. v) the learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the policy of awarding grace marks as opposed to fix 1% quota has a rational nexus with the object of ensuring NCC participation while maintaining high academic standards. The award of grace marks provides boost to a greater number of students also ensuring that the selected candidates meet the primary requirement of qualifying the NEET UG exam, ensuring the basic academic standards are met, which is not the case in the fixed 1% quota. vi) the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the new policy is designed to balance the recognition of the NCC service with the principle of merit. The scheme of grace marks provides a supplemental advantage to the students who are the members of NCC service, without diluting the overall merit based selection process, which may not be possible in the case of a separate fixed percentage of reserved quota. Analysis and reasoning: 13. We have carefully considered the pleadings, arguments advanced and the relevant G.Os. 14. The scheme of grace marks provides a supplemental advantage to the students who are the members of NCC service, without diluting the overall merit based selection process, which may not be possible in the case of a separate fixed percentage of reserved quota. Analysis and reasoning: 13. We have carefully considered the pleadings, arguments advanced and the relevant G.Os. 14. The fundamental and foremost principle that guides our decision is the limited scope of judicial review in matters of policy formulation. It is well settled that the Court does not sit in appeal to examine the wisdom or efficacy of a policy formulated by the State. The choice between providing a reservation quota or awarding grace marks is a matter of legislative and executive policy, in which the interference of this Court is very limited and restrictive. 15. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the policy of awarding grace marks is manifestly arbitrary or violative of any constitutional or legal provision, and in the absence of the same, this Court must exercise restraint. 16. The petitioners’ claim of violation of Article 14 of Constitution on the grounds of arbitrariness on the ground of substitution of policy of 1% reservation with award of grace marks is untenable. 17. The respondents in its counter-affidavit have provided cogent and convincing reasons for shifting the policy from 1% reservation to the award of grace marks. The objective was to extend the benefit of incentive to a broader base of NCC cadets who qualify in the NEET rather than confining it to small number of students, who might secure the few seats under 1% quota. This objective is apparently legitimate and the method of awarding grace marks appears to be directly and rationally connected to achieving the object of incentivising larger number of students to join NCC. The argument of the petitioners that the award of grace marks is not beneficial, is the matter of subjective perception of the petitioners and by itself, does not render the policy made by the State either arbitrary or illegal. 18. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to compel the State or its instrumentality to either create or continue in perpetuity the policy which in the subjective perception of individual(s) is beneficial. The petitioners have no vested legal right to seek the continuation of 1% reservation for NCC cadets in the admission to MBBS/BDS. 18. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to compel the State or its instrumentality to either create or continue in perpetuity the policy which in the subjective perception of individual(s) is beneficial. The petitioners have no vested legal right to seek the continuation of 1% reservation for NCC cadets in the admission to MBBS/BDS. The State is well with its rights to alter its policies in public interest. The plea of legitimate expectation of the petitioners, is therefore, without any basis and is rejected. 19. The petitioners’ reliance on G.O.Ms.No.44 of the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh is completely misplaced. The fact that the neighbouring State has chosen a different policy model of combining grace marks with fixed quota of reservation does not create any obligation on the State of Telangana to emulate the same. The State is free to make and/or adopt policies suited to its specific needs and circumstances. 20. It is not the case of the petitioners that the State has withdrawn all incentives for NCC cadets. The State has merely altered the form of incentive from a reserved percentage of seats to a marks-based alternative by award of grace marks to various categories of students who participated in the NCC. The grace marks system recognises and rewards the achievements of NCC cadets by improving the rank of the NCC cadets in the highly competitive NEET exam of admission to MBBS/BDS. The award of grace marks is a substantial benefit and cannot be termed as illusory or less beneficial. 21. The revised policy of award of grace marks aligns with the well recognised principle of selecting candidates for professional medical courses, primarily on the basis of merit. The award of grace marks rightly incentivizes extra-curricular contributions by students who are members of the NCC by enhancing the candidates within the merit list, across all categories, ensuring that the final selection is based on the merit list. 22. For the foregoing reasons, we find no constitutional or legal infirmity in the replacement of G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.2017 with G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 04.07.2023. The policy decision of the State to replace the 1% NCC quota with a system of grace marks is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable or illegal. It is a valid exercise of the executive power and aimed at achieving a broader and more equitable distribution of the benefits amount to all eligible NCC cadets. 23. The policy decision of the State to replace the 1% NCC quota with a system of grace marks is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable or illegal. It is a valid exercise of the executive power and aimed at achieving a broader and more equitable distribution of the benefits amount to all eligible NCC cadets. 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.