Telangana High Court Allows Petitions for Medical Seats Under Local Quota
The Telangana High Court’s division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao, has ruled in favor of 80 students who filed 53 writ petitions. These students were seeking admission to MBBS and BDS courses in the state as “local candidates.”
The students had challenged the validity of Rule 3(a) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, which had been amended by Government Order (GO) 33 on July 19, 2024. Their applications for admission under the local candidate quota had been rejected, prompting them to take legal action.
The court provided relief to the students by directing the government to allocate seats to them under the local candidate quota for medical admissions. The bench also granted the government the liberty to create new guidelines or rules to clearly define when a student qualifies as a permanent resident of the state. The respective university will then allocate the seats accordingly.
The court observed that, in the absence of clear guidelines, students who are permanent residents of Telangana should still be eligible for the local quota, even if they completed their education in neighboring states. The bench emphasized that the petitioners should be considered for the local quota if they can prove their domicile or permanent residency in Telangana.
High Court Reserves Orders on Land Allotment Case
On the same day, the High Court division bench reserved its orders in two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) related to the allotment of 850 acres of government land to IMG Academies Bharata Pvt Ltd. The land was allotted by the then Andhra Pradesh government at a lower cost for the purpose of building and operating sports academies.
Senior counsel Vedula Venkataramana, representing IMG Bharata, argued that the petitioners, ABK Prasad and advocate T Sriranga Rao, had no genuine public interest in the matter. He claimed that their motivations were influenced by private interests and political affiliations, particularly with the opposition party during the TDP regime.
Venkataramana pointed out that the land allocation had been approved by a Cabinet Sub-Committee and later by the full Cabinet. He also mentioned that the then TDP government had requested the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the sale agreement with the company, a request initially declined but later accepted by the CBI.
The counsel further noted that the land in question, located in Ranga Reddy district, is now under the jurisdiction of the Telangana government, as directed by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. He argued that the petitioners’ political connections, particularly with former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, suggested that their PILs were motivated by personal and political interests rather than public welfare.
Senior Supreme Court counsel Siddharth Luthra, representing former MP P Ramulu, also argued that the petitioners were pursuing political interests rather than public ones. He claimed that the petitioners had concealed their political affiliations in the PILs, indicating an intent to settle scores with the TDP.
The High Court has reserved its decision on the matter.
