Telangana MBBS/BDS Local Quota : Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Excluding Students Who Went To Other States For Coaching

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 27) while hearing the issue pertaining to the Telangana Domicile Quota Rule for MBBS Admissions expressed concern over denying the quota benefit to those candidates who, while being permanent residents of Telangana went, to neighbouring states only for coaching purposes, in the last 4 years preceding the medical exam.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice 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.

On the last hearing, 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.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farast, appearing for 16 candidates, argued that the present candidates scored more marks than the local quota candidates. It was the case of these candidates that for 4 years they went to Andhra Pradesh to get coaching for the medical exams and the G.O. (Government Order) which is now struck down by the impugned decision excluded them from getting the domicile quota benefits. Apart from the 4 years, the rest of the candidates' lives were spent in Telangana itself.

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.

Farasat urged that the present stay on the impugned order be vacated and the counselling for the admissions should be allowed as “otherwise very incongruous results are going to be seen.”

The CJI interjected, “ in fact during the course of the hearing we have specifically raised this issue - what about others? (Non- petitioners before the High Court)

Few other intervenors also argued on parity saying that they had gone to Vijayawada to receive coaching which is just on the outskirts of Telangana.

The counsels urged the bench to allow such candidates to appear for counseling which is to begin on Friday and end on Sunday 6 PM.

The CJI, noting that the bench presently was not in a three-judge combination, assured to hear the matter on Monday (September 30). The CJI however did express worry for those candidates who while permanently resided in Telangana but had gone to other states for coaching purposes during the 4 years stipulation.

“Otherwise what will happen is there will be more meritorious candidates from Telangana who will never get these seats ….and many of these students from Telangana would have gone to Vijayawada, to Andhra only for some coaching. They will be ousted, otherwise they are completely permanent residents of Telangana.”

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the State of Telangana, argued that a distinction cannot be drawn between those who had gone to other States for coaching and those who are from abroad.  The stipulation of 4 years of continuous residence had to be applied uniformly. He said that there is a lot of Telugu diaspora in foreign countries and the absence of the criteria will open the doors for them to corner the seats for local quota candidates.

He further added that the impugned GO was issued only on July 19, 2024 after the tenure of 10 years of AP Re-Organisation Act came to an end on June 1 thus making the present rule a 'completely new dispensation'.

The CJI taking note of the same added “How do you make a distinction between those in Andhra and those outside, because once you say that the 4 years requirement of schooling is illegal, then anybody and everybody can come in.”

The Court agreed to hear the matter on Monday in a 3 judge combination in order to modify its earlier order of stay.

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.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR; Mr. Tushar Srivatsava, Adv.; Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Adv.; Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv.  

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, AOR; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mishra, AOR; Mr. P.B.Suresh, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR; Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, Adv.; Mr. Sriram P., AOR; Mr. Shaik Mohammad Haneef, Adv.; Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR

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