Medical Admissions Rule That Candidate Must Study In Local Area For 4 Consecutive Years Not Applicable To Permanent Residents: Telangana High Court
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has held Rule 3(III)(B) Telangana Medical and Dental College Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar refrained from striking down the Rule honouring the object of...
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has held Rule 3(III)(B) Telangana Medical and Dental College Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar refrained from striking down the Rule honouring the object of the legislation, which is to provide reservations for local candidates. The Court rather read it down, holding that the same will not be applicable to permanent residents of the State.
"There appears to be no justification for denying the benefit of admission to a student who is a permanent resident of State of Telangana who may not have studied or resided in local area for four consecutive academic years ending with academic year in which he/she appeared, or as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination. For the aforementioned reasons, it is held that Rule 3(III)(B) of 2017 Rules is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
"In case the rule is struck down then students from all over the country shall be entitled to admission in medical colleges. Therefore, instead of striking down Rule 3(III)(B) of 2017 Rules, it needs to be read down. Therefore, we read down Rule 3(III)(B) of 2017 Rules and it is held that the aforesaid Rule shall not apply to permanent residents of the State of Telangana."
This landmark decision came after the Court was flooded by a number of writs filed by permanent residents of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, who were held 'non-local' in NEET 2023. Rule 3(III)(B) of the 2017 Rules stipulate that a person shall be deemed to be a local candidate, if he/she has either studied four consecutive years preceding the exam in the State or, has lived for 7 consecutive years in the State preceding the exam.
A group of NEET aspirants contended that despite being residents of the State, they were not being considered for the local candidate reservation, due to having stayed or studied outside of the State immediately preceding the exam. They claimed that the move out of the State was either due to unforeseen circumstances like the Covid-19 pandemic or due to their parents being in the All India Services, and being posted to a different State.
Contentions:
While various advocates represented various students, the arguments advanced were on similar lines. The common submission was that the writ petitioners were local candidates and hence entitled to the reservation.
It was averred that the Rule was arbitrary, and should not be applicable to the children whose parents are serving in the All India Services. It was contended and various High Courts, including the Telangana High Court, have interpreted the 2017 Rules and legislations which are pari materia of the same and held that the place children accompany their parents to in All India Service postings, should be considered their normal place of residence.
It was also contended that the Rules were not established in furtherance of any Presidential Order in furtherance of powers under Article 371(D) and in fact, were established under Section 3 read with Section 15(1) of the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee), Act, 1983 and the said Act does not define the ‘local area’.
The contention on behalf of the Standing Counsel for the University was that Rules 3(III)(B) framed derive their power from para 4(1)(a) and (b) of the Presidential Order, i.e., Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974, and the Presidential Order needs to be challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Counsel stated that rule 3(III)(B) and para 4(1)(a) & (b) are pari materia of each other and the same was upheld by the Supreme Court in C.Surekha v. Union of India.
It was contended that Rule 3 of 2017 Rules mandates that a candidate must satisfy the Local and non-local requirements as stipulated under the Presidential Order.
The Counsel averred that section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 mandates the Presidential Order to be in force for a period of 10 years, up to 2024.
The standing Counsel also relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bathina Rajya Shilpa to support their contention that for a child to be acknowledged as a local resident by way of prolonged stay for a period of 7 years, he/she should not have been studying in an educational institution recognised by the State Government.
In the rejoinder submitted by the Senior Counsel arguing in W.P. 21788 and 23265 of 2023, the contention was that the precedents relied on by the standing Counsel for the university are not applicable to the present case. It was further contended that the rules were framed in furtherance of entry 25 by the State legislature and not by way of a Presidential Order.
The Senior Counsel in WP 21268 of 2023 contended that although Article 371(D) provides for a presidential order, the same has not issued an order for the State of Telangana, after the bifurcation in 2014, and hence the Presidential Order of 1974 would not be applicable to the present case.
Findings:
The Court found that the Rules were framed in furtherance of section 3 read with section 15 of the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee), Act, 1983, which was enacted by the State Legislature under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and held that the petitioners need not challenge the Presidential Order.
"Thus, from perusal of paragraph 3 of G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.2017, it is evident that 2017 Rules have neither been framed in exercise of powers under Article 371D of the Constitution of India nor under the Presidential Order.'
The Court also observed that the Judgement of the Supreme Court relied on by the Standing Counsel, although upholds the constitutional validity of Article 371(D)(2)(iii) and 3(ii) which allows the President to designate 'local area' for purpose of admission into any University or Educational institution, did not do so especially in relation to the Presidential Order in question.
The Court also held that the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the validity of para 4(1)&(2) of the Presidential Order, in Bathina Rajya Shilpa. Further, it held that the precedent would not be binding, as the judgement was passed before the inception of the Rules.
"The Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has not interpreted Rule 3(III)(B) and (C) of 2017 Rules as 2017 Rules have been framed subsequent to the aforesaid decision."
The Court however held that since none of the children either resided for 7 years or studied for 4 years immediately preceding the NEET exam 2023, "it is axiomatic that none of the petitioners either fall under Rule 3(III)(B) or 3(III)(C) of 2017 Rules."
The Court analysed that 'local area' and 'local candidate' has not been defined. "There appears to be no justification for denying the benefit of admission to a student who is a permanent resident of State of Telangana who may not have studied or resided in local area for four consecutive academic years ending with academic year in which he/she appeared or as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination."
The Court directed all permanent residents to produce a Residency Certificate before the competent authorities of the State Government within 1 week, upon which the University shall consider that child as a local candidate and accordingly disposed of the petitions.
Case Title: Prashansa Rathod vs. State of Telangana & connected matters.
Counsels for petitioners: MANOJ REDDY KESHI REDDY, ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY, PRABHAKAR PERI. P NAGESH, KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI, S SURENDER REDDY, UZAIR AHMED KHAN, K R SUNIL KUMAR, G DINESH PATIL
Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences: A PRABHAKAR RAO
Counsel for State: GP. For Medical Health & FW