Telangana MBBS/BDS Admissions : Supreme Court Asks State If Local Quota Criteria Can Be Applied From Next Academic Year

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court which held that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for 4 continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions. 

Before the High Court, a batch of petitions challenged the validity of Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (Rules 2017) which was amended by the State on July 19. The amendment was done as per G.O no.33 dated 19.7.2024.

The amended Rule 3(a) of Rules 2017 provides that a candidate seeking admission under the 'Competent Authority Quota' for local candidates must study in the State of Telangana for a period of 4 consecutive years or reside in the state for 4 years. In addition, the candidate has to pass the qualifying examination from the State of Telangana. 

On September 20, the Court had stayed the impugned order while taking on record the statement of the State of Telangana that it was ready to grant a one-time exception for the petitioners who had approached the High Court. 

Today, during the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the State of Telangana, opined that it was difficult to distinguish between candidates who took coaching in other states like Andhra Pradesh and those who are living abroad. He also said that the concession made by the State was creating other problems as it was excluding students who have scored more marks than the petitioners.

"One way to resolving the equity is I withdraw the concession on instructions, then you decide on merits," he told the bench. 

The CJI then revealed that when the State offered the concession, he felt 'uneasy' as that would only put the original petitioners at an advantage and not other candidates who could not approach the High Court. 

"There was something uneasy, I felt you cannot grant a concession to only some persons before the court... there is some problem with the concession," CJI said.

On the last hearing, the Court had expressed concern over the denying local quota benefit to those candidates who, while being permanent residents of Telangana, went to neighbouring states for coaching purposes in the last 4 years preceding the medical exam. 

Gopal S. further explained that the present local criteria will only become active at the counselling stage at the State Level after the candidates have given the NEET UG Exam. Thus the argument of the candidates that the amended criteria were brought in unjustly in the middle of the admission process held no merit. 

To address the issue of differentiating between genuine local quota candidates and those staying aboard or not living in the state for past 4 years, the Senior Counsel had sought time to get a detailed break up on the candidates' data. 

The bench agreed to list the matter on Thursday and asked the State to put all the respondents on notice about the same. Before parting with the hearing, the CJI also remarked - "Not a direction, but Mr Gopal S just see if this (amended criteria) can be applied from next year"  

Senior Advocates Sadan Farasat and PV Dinesh also appeared for a few candidates. 

Background

Before the Telangana High Court, a batch of petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (Rules 2017) which was amended by the State on July 19.

As per the impugned provision, a candidate seeking admission under the 'Competent Authority Quota' for local candidates requires him or her to study in the State of Telangana for a period of 4 years or reside in the state for 4 years.

Notably, Rule 3(iii) provides 85% reservations to 'local candidates' for permanent residents of the State.

In its judgment, the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao focused on Rule 3(a) of the 2017 Rules, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.33 on July 19, 2024. The primary purpose of this rule is to reserve seats for local candidates in medical colleges. The court recognized that if this rule were to be completely struck down, it would allow students from across the country to seek admission in Telangana's medical colleges, potentially disadvantaging the state's permanent residents.

The Court also noted that a more stringent condition has been added that the candidate has to pass the qualifying exam in the State of Telangana.

The bench "read down" Rule 3(a) and 3(iii) of the 2017 Rules to interpret that the rules should not apply to the permanent residents of Telangana. The High Court construed the same in line with Article 371D(2)(b)(ii) of the Indian Constitution, which allows for special provisions to be made for people from different parts of the state regarding admission to educational institutions.

"Therefore, we read down the Rule 3(a) and 3(iii) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024. It is held that the aforesaid Rule shall not apply to permanent residents of the State of Telangana. Thus, by reading down the Rule in the manner indicated above shall also be in consonance of object of Article 371D(2)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of India i.e., of making special provision to the people of different parts of State for admission to educational institutions."

The High Court also suggested the State Government to frame the guidelines/rules to determine as to when a student can be considered as a permanent resident of the State of Telangana

"We direct that Rule 3(a) of the 2017 Rules, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, will 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. It is stated at the bar that there are no guidelines/rules framed by the State Government to ascertain whether a student is a domicile/permanent resident of the State of Telangana. We, therefore, grant the liberty to the Government to frame the guidelines/rules to determine as to when a student can be considered as a permanent resident of the State of Telangana."

Notably, in August 2023, the High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar read down Rule 3(III)(B) of 2017 Rules.

Rule 3(III)(B) of the 2017 Rules stipulated 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.

The bench 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.

Case Details : THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. Versus KALLURI NAGA NARASIMHA ABHIRAM AND ORS. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024