'15% Seats Reserved For Non-Locals': Telangana High Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging 100% Domicile Reservation In State Medical Colleges

The Telangana High Court on Monday dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the State's decision to reserve 100% seats in MBBS and BDS admissions under the 'Competent Authority Quota' for locals in 36 state colleges established after June 2, 2014. 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar accordingly upheld the validity of Rules (3)(II)(d), (e) (h) and Rule (3)(III)(a) which have been substituted vide G.O.No.72, dated 03.07.2023 in Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017.

However, the Bench clarified that this was not a case of 100% reservation as contended by the petitioners since only 85% of the quota seats were reserved for Telangana. 

"... the instant case is not a case of 100% reservation as only 85% of competent authority quota seats in respect of educational institutions which have been set up after formation of the State, i.e., 02.06.2014 had been reserved for the candidates of State of Telangana." 

The Court observed that prior to and after the amendment, 15% reservation was made for students who were non-local candidates. 

"The quota of 85% of competent authority quota seats and of 15% of competent authority quota seats for admission to MBBS/BDS courses is maintained, even after amendment of the 2017 Rules as on 02.06.2014...After the amendment, 85% of competent authority quota seats had been reserved for local candidates, whereas candidates of remaining States of the country can seek admission in MBBS/BDS course in respect of 15% quota."

Contentions: 

Earlier this year, numerous petitions were filed before the Court by medical aspirants from Andhra Pradesh, who were seeking admission into the MBBS/BDS course under the non-local category. They contended that the amendment was against Articles 13(2), 14, 15, 16 and 371(D), against the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 (Presidential Order) and section 95 of the Reorganization Act, 2014.

They claimed that the reservation created a disadvantage for the students of Andhra Pradesh, who had legitimate expectations considering Section 95 of the Reorganization Act, by placing unreasonable restrictions on the process of admission in UG Medical Courses.

The detailed contentions of the petitioners can be found here. Meanwhile, the candidates had also approached the Supreme Court for similar relief and the same was dismissed, directing the petitioners to approach the High Court. 

However, Advocate General B.S. Prasad clarified that the amendment reserved only 85% of competent authority quota seats for the local candidates of the State of Telangana and that the remaining 15% was open to candidates from all over India, including from Andhra Pradesh.

He stated that Section 95 of the Reorganization Act mandates reservation for students of Andhra Pradesh in the 'existing quota', i.e, the quota that existed in colleges established before the bifurcation. The Advocate General stated that the quota in relation to colleges that existed before the bifurcation (02.06.14) had not been altered and clarified that 85% reservation was made for local students only in the 35 colleges that came up afterwards.

Advocate General Prasad contended that the plea of legitimate expectations cannot be entertained, because firstly, section 95 did not create any expectations regarding the colleges that came up after 2014, i.e., seats that were created in the future. And secondly, the amendment to the rule was notified (03.07.23) prior to the commencement of the selection process (06.07.23).

The Advocate General concluded his arguments by bringing to the Court's notice that the amendment was in consonance with the presidential order, as it aimed to create reservations for local candidates.

The counsel on behalf of the university contended that Andhra Pradesh had created similar reservations for local candidates, and it would be unfair, for them to be considered as local candidates of two separate states. The petitioners submitted a rejoinder claiming that the Reorganization Act mandated the existing admission quota to be unchanged for a period of 10 years, and the amendment was premature.

Verdict: 

The Bench observed that since the Act that gave power to the Rules was enacted by the State under Entry 25 of the Concurrent list, the State had the authority to amend the Rules. The question the Bench then considered was whether such an amendment was constitutional. The Court further observed that the Presidential Order aimed at creating 85% reservation for the local students, and thus it could not be said that the amendment is against the Presidential Order.

The Bench also noted that while interpreting statutes each and every word should be analysed. By putting this principle to effect, the Court held that the wording of Section 95 of the Reorganization Act, was clear to maintain reservation only in the 'existing admission quota.'

By the above-mentioned reasoning, the Court noted, that candidates who are admittedly locals of the State of Andhra Pradesh could not have 'legitimate expectations' to be considered as locals of the State of Telangana.

"Thus, the petitioners who are admittedly the local candidates of the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot have any legitimate expectation under Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act to claim a right in respect of seats which came into existence in 34 educational institutions set up in the State of Telangana after the formation of the State."

The Court also added that legitimate expectations cannot be invoked against legislation.

By a thorough analysis of the facts placed by both sides, the Court concluded that although 100% reservation is not permissible, it cannot be said that the State of Telangana has created any such reservation.

"85% of competent authority quota seats alone had been reserved for local candidates for the State of Telangana in respect of institutions set up after formation of the State i.e., 02.06.2014 and it is permissible for the students of other States including the State of Andhra Pradesh to participate in 15% of competent authority quota seats, it is directed that the aforesaid provision, if not already made, shall be made in the seat matrix notified by the University." 

The Court also held that the decision in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India did not apply to the State of Telangana, while adding that Supreme Court decisions in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and Satyajit Kumar clarify that 100% reservation in the matter of employment is violative of the constitutional guarantee contained in Article 16 of the Constitution.

As such, the petitions were dismissed. 

Case Title: Sanikommu Venkata Sai Bharath Reddy & Ors v. Union of India

Counsel for petitioner: Anup Koushik Karavadi, P. Thirumala Rao, I.Mamu Vani, Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Srinivasa Srikanth, Rajagopallavan Tayi, S.V.Ramana, Madhusudhan Reddy, Ms. Y.Ratna Prabha, Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, Palle Nageswar Rao, R.Yella Reddy, Mr. Basa Chanakya, Anirudh Sadhu, B.Srinarayana, C.M.R.Velu, Mr. Rama Rao Kochiri, Ms. S.Madhavi, Sk. Fakruddin Ali, P. Vengala Reddy, P.Shravan Kumar Goud, Satyanarayana Dharmapuri, G.Shilpa, Ch.Venkat Raman, Naresh Reddy Chinnolla and A.Durga Bhaskar

Counsel for respondents: Advocate General B.S. Prasad, Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India, A.Prabhakar Rao, Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, N.Praveen Kumar, Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, S.Vijay Prashanth, Standing Counsel for Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad (TVVP), Gorantla Sri Ranga Pujitha, Standing Counsel for National Medical Commission, P.Govind Reddy, Special Counsel for the State

Click Here To Read/Download Order