Citation: 2025 INSC 1058
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench: CJI B.R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: September 1, 2025
Appeals: From Telangana High Court judgments dated 29.08.2023 & 05.09.2024.
Issue
Whether the High Court, under Article 226, could expand the definition of “local candidate” framed by subordinate legislation in line with the Presidential Order under Article 371D, and thereby alter the admission rules for medical courses in Telangana.
Facts
Telangana framed the Medical & Dental Admission Rules, 2017 (under the Admission Act, 1983).
These rules defined a local candidate in terms of study/residence in Telangana for 4 years preceding the qualifying exam.
High Court (2023 & 2024): Expanded the definition to include students with residence certificates, holding that exclusion was arbitrary & violative of Article 14.
The State appealed, arguing this defeated the object of Article 371D, meant to ensure preferential admissions for genuinely local students likely to serve the State.
Arguments
Appellants (State of Telangana)
Definition of local candidate under Presidential Order is binding.
High Court cannot expand or read down the definition.
Rule intended to help local and marginalized candidates.
Expansion allows affluent students who studied outside the State to unfairly claim local quota.
Respondents (Students)
Definition is too rigid, ignores life’s vagaries (e.g., transfers, better schooling outside State).
Rule discriminates against children with Telangana roots but compelled to study elsewhere.
High Court rightly harmonized definition to include residence certificates.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
Source of Power:
Education = Entry 25, List III → State can legislate under Articles 245 & 246.
Admission Act, 1983 expressly refers to Presidential Order, 1974 → Rules validly framed.
Thus, Rules of 2017 trace back to Article 371D and cannot be judicially expanded.
High Court’s Error:
Expanded definition without statutory basis → created anomalies.
No law defining “residence certificate” → leads to arbitrariness & litigation.
Precedents:
D.P. Joshi (1955), Kumari Vasundara (1971), Pradeep Jain (1984), Anand Madaan (1995), Rajdeep Ghosh (2018) → upheld residence/domicile conditions in medical admissions.
Hardship of some students not ground to strike down rules; policy domain lies with legislature.
Proviso for Relief:
State proposed amendment to Rule 3 allowing exceptions for children of Telangana Govt/All India Services/Defence/PSU employees posted outside Telangana.
SC accepted this proviso to mitigate hardship.
Decision
Appeals by Telangana State & University allowed.
Telangana High Court judgments (29.08.2023 & 05.09.2024) set aside.
Rules of 2017 (as amended in 2024) upheld, with recognition of proviso exceptions for employees’ children.
Students already admitted (under interim orders) will not be disturbed.
Writ Petitions and SLPs filed by students dismissed.
No costs.
2025 INSC 1058
Page 1 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos……….…….……. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.21536-21588 of 2024)
The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc.
…. Appellant(s)
Versus
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.
....Respondent(s)
With
Civil Appeal No……….……. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 43112 of 2024)
Civil Appeal No………….……. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23421 of 2024)
Writ Petition (C) No.637 of 2024
Civil Appeal No……….……. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 44682 of 2024)
Writ Petition (C) No. 672 of 2024
Writ Petition (C) No. 661 of 2024
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
Page 2 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
2. Whether the wisdom of the legislature in defining a
‘local candidate’ entitled to apply under the ‘Competent
Authority Seats/Quota’, by a subordinate legislation, in
consonance with a Presidential Order issued under
Article 371D of the Constitution of India, can be interfered
with and expanded by the High Court under Article 226,
is the question arising in these batch of appeals.
3. The State of Telangana in their appeals allege that
the expansion of the definition, on the subjective
satisfaction of the High Court, would lead to frustrating
the special provision under Article 371D, intended to
confer a benefit to those local candidates in the State of
Telangana who can be given preferential admission to the
medical courses. The true test being not the claim of
nativity by descent, but by their residence and their
continued education within the State, culminating with the
appearance in the qualifying examination within the State,
establishing the real bonding and true integration into the
local environment. This raises a valid presumption that
they would continue working, after qualifying, in the
Page 3 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
locality, serving the people of the State. The respondentsstudents, however, urge that the definition of local
candidate itself is gross and does not reckon the vagaries
of life and employment of the parents, which takes the
children away from the State, whose roots remain all the
same within the State.
4. The State counters that the definition has been
molded in such a manner as to not only benefit those
people who studied and resided for a considerable
period within the State; but also ensure that those students
who come from the marginalized sections are included.
Such persons are those who are born into families who do
not have the capacity to send their children outside the
State and the Country for availing better educational
facilities or expert and focused training to appear for the
competitive entrance examinations. Most likely these are
the persons who would remain within the State and offer
their services to those residing in the State, which has a
dearth of qualified medical practitioners.
Page 4 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
5. We heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr.
Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned senior counsel and Mr.
A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General
appearing for the appellants/State/University and Mr. P.B.
Suresh, Mr. Raghenth Basant, Mr. Prakash Deu Naik,
learned senior counsel and Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi,
learned counsel appearing for the respective
respondents/student-aspirants and Mr. S. Sriram, learned
senior counsel appearing for the impleader.
6. Two separate Rules containing almost similar
definitions were under challenge before the High Court.
The first batch of Writ Petitions challenged the Telangana
Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into
MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 20171
, the judgment in which
was passed on 29.08.2023. Closely following suit, the
second batch of Writ Petitions challenging the
amendments brought into the definition of ‘local
candidates’ vide GOMS No.33 dated 19.07.2024 was also
allowed on 05.09.2024. Both these judgments are in
appeal before us. In the meanwhile, by way of an interim
1 hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules of 2017’
Page 5 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
order, there were admissions made on the consent of the
State as per the expanded definition ordered by the High
Court, subject to the final result of the appeals before this
Court.
7. We will first briefly notice the genesis and the
history of the preferential admissions to the professional
courses in the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh and
then after division, in the newly formed State of
Telangana. Article 371D as it stood before the division
referred to special provisions with respect to the State of
Andhra Pradesh for providing equitable opportunities
and facilities to the people belonging to the State, both in
the matters of public employment and education, as
enabled by a Presidential Order. After division, the
nominal heading was substituted to include State of
Telangana, which enabled the President by order to
provide, having regard to the requirements of each State,
for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people
belonging to different parts of such States, in the matter of
public employment and in the matter of education, in
Page 6 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
exercise of the powers conferred thereby. The Andhra
Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulations of
Admissions) Order, 19742 was published in the Gazette of
India, Extraordinary Part II dated 01.07.1974; which came
into force on the same day. It divided the State into three
local areas of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and
Rayalaseema as applicable to the Osmania University,
Andhra Pradesh University and Sri Venkateswara
University respectively.
8. The Presidential Order, originally provided that a
local candidate in relation to a local area would be such
person who has studied in an educational
institution/institutions in such local area for a period of not
less than four consecutive academic years ending with
the academic year in which he appeared or first
appeared in the relevant qualifying examination. It was
also provided that when a student has resided within the
local area in the four consecutive academic years ending
with the academic year in which he qualified and has not
studied in any educational institution, he would be
2 hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Presidential Order’
Page 7 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
entitled to seek admission as a local candidate; which
benefit is for students who qualify through private study
or the open school system. The Andhra Pradesh
Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions)
Second Amendment Order, 1976 amplified the said
definition to take in students who had during the
preceding years of qualification, studied in different local
areas. The students who studied in different local areas,
by the amendment, would have the benefit of being
considered in the local area where he has studied the
maximum time within a seven-year period. This benefit
was also conferred on any resident in different local areas
in the preceding seven years who had qualified in the
examinations held in one of the local areas but not studied
in any educational institution. The relevant qualifying
examination is specified in the Presidential Order as the
examination, passing of which is the minimum
educational qualification for admission to the course of
study for which admission is sought; herein specifically
MBBS and BDS.
Page 8 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
9. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014
provided for continuance of the benefit under Article
371D for ten years in the newly formed States of Andhra
Pradesh and Telangana. The first challenge was to the
Rules of 2017 dated 05.07.2017. The local areas in the said
orders were also divided into three; being Andhra,
Rayalseema & Telangana, respectively associated with
the three Universities and the definition of local
candidates was in consonance with what was available in
the Presidential Order. The Division Bench of the High
Court formulated eight questions which are noticed
hereunder, in seriatim: -
(i)Whether the Rules of 2017 are framed under
Article 371D and the Presidential Order?
(ii) Whether the Rules of 2017 are framed
under the Telangana Educational Institutions
(Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of
Capitation Fee), Act, 19833?
(iii) Whether the Regulation Act of 1983 is
framed under Article 371D of the Constitution or
under the Presidential Order?
(iv) Whether the validity of the Order of
1974 was examined by the Supreme Court in
C.Surekha v. Union of India4 ?
(v) Whether the High Court could examine
the validity of the Rules of 2017?
3 Hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Admission Act of 1983’
4
(1988) 4 SCC 526
Page 9 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
(vi) & (vii) whether the petitioners fall under
either of the definitions of the Rules of 2017;
Rule 3(III)(B) or 3(III)(C)?
(viii) whether Rule3(III)B of the Rules of 2017 is
to be struck down or read down?
10. Insofar as the first question is concerned, looking
at the notification dated 05.07.2017 and the reference to
the Admission Act of 1983, it was found that the Rules of
2017 was not one framed invoking the powers conferred
under the Presidential Order issued under Article 371D.
11. On the basis of the recitals in the notification, the
second question was answered in the affirmative, finding
the Rules of 2017 to be made under the Admission Act of
1983. The Admission Act of 1983, answering the third
question, was also found to be not enacted either under
Article 371D or the Presidential Order.
12. It was found that the source of power to enact the
Admission Act of 1983 and bring out the Rules of 2017
were perceived to be under Entry 25 of List III of the
Seventh Schedule. The Admission Act of 1983 did not
trace the source to either Article 371D or the Presidential
Order, in which event, neither was that Act enacted, nor
Page 10 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
the Rules of 2017 said to have been brought out, under the
Presidential Order. We are unable to accede to the above
reasoning for more than one reason.
13. It is not in dispute that the Presidential Order
brought out under Article 371D of the Constitution
enabled the State to provide for equitable opportunities
and facilities for the people belonging to the different
parts of the State inter alia in the matter of education. A
reading of the Admission Act of 1983, specifically Section
3 is relevant in this context, which is as under: -
3. (1) Subject to such rules as may be made in this
behalf, admission into educational institutions shall
be made either on the basis of the marks obtained in
the qualifying examination or on the basis of the
ranking assigned in the entrance test conducted by
such authority and in such manner as may be
prescribed;
(1A) [XXX]
[Provided that admission into Agriculture,
Dental, Engineering, Medical, Pharmacy and
Veterinary Colleges shall be made on the basis of
ranking assigned by giving weightage to the marks
secured in the relevant group subjects namely,
Biology, Physics, Chemistry or Mathematics, Physics,
Chemistry, as the case may be, in the Intermediate
Public Examination or equivalent examination and
weightage to the marks secured in the common
entrance test as may be prescribed.]
(2) The admission into educational institutions
under sub-section (1) shall be subject to such rules as
may be made by the Government in regard to
reservation of seats to the members belonging to
Page 11 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward
Classes and other categories of students as may be
notified by the Government in this behalf and the
Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation
of Admission) Order, 1974.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-sections
(1) and (2), it shall be lawful for the Government, to
admit students belonging to other States on
reciprocal basis and the nominees of the Government
of India, into Medical and Engineering Colleges in
accordance with such rules as may be prescribed:
Provided that admission of students into the
Regional Engineering College, Warangal to the
extent of one-half of the total number of seats shall be
in accordance with the guidelines issued by the
Government of India, from time to time.
(underlining by us for emphasis)
14. The provision emphasised above specifically
enable rules to be brought out not only with respect to
reservation of seats to the members belonging to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward
Classes, but also other categories of students, as may be
notified by the Government in this behalf and the
Presidential Order has been specifically referred to in the
above Act, which went unnoticed by the Division Bench.
15. A Constitution Bench decision of Seven Learned
Judges of this Court in Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon5
held, following yet another Constitution Bench of Five
5
(1971) 2 SCC 779
Page 12 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
Learned Judges in Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v.
Union of India6, that the power to legislate is given to the
appropriate legislatures by Article 246 of the
Constitution. It was declared that ‘The entries in the three
lists are only legislative heads or fields of legislation; they
demarcate the area over which the appropriate legislatures
can operate’ (sic).
16. Usefull reference can be made to yet another
decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of
West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd.7, from which we
make the following extract to the extent it is relevant for
this case, since the issue regarding the residuary powers
vested in the Parliament, which was the subject matter of
the cited decision, does not arise in the present case. The
relevant part of paragraph No.31 reads as under: -
31. Article 245 of the Constitution is the fountain
source of legislative power. It provides — subject to
the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may
make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of
India, and the legislature of a State may make laws for
the whole or any part of the State. The legislative
field between Parliament and the legislature of
any State is divided by Article 246 of the
Constitution. Parliament has exclusive power to
6
(1969) 2 SCC 166
7
(2004) 10 SCC 201
Page 13 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule, called
the “Union List”. Subject to the said power of
Parliament, the legislature of any State has power to
make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List III, called the “Concurrent List”.
Subject to the abovesaid two, the legislature of any
State has exclusive power to make laws with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in List II, called the
“State List”.
(bold font for emphasis)
17. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. National Thermal
Power Corporation Limited8, the perceived conflict
between Entries 53 and 54 of List II of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution was considered. Entry 53
provided for tax on consumption of electricity while Entry
54 provided for tax on sale of goods. The conflict was
argued, especially on the basis of the findings of this
Court in Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala9 that
electricity is goods since supply and consumption take
place without any hiatus bringing it within the definition of
a sale. Holding that even when there is perceived conflict
between two entries, an effort should be made to
harmonise it, it was found that several entries in the three
8
(2002) 5 SCC 203
9
(1996) 7 SCC 637
Page 14 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
lists of the Seventh Schedule are legislative heads or
fields of legislation and not the source of legislative
empowerment. “Competence to legislate has to be traced
to the Constitution. The division of powers between
Parliament and the State Legislatures to legislate by
reference to territorial limits is defined by Article 245”(sic).
Harmonising Entries 53 and 54, it was held that tax could
be levied on sale of electricity under Entry 54 and even if
there is no sale by the manufacturer, its consumption by
the manufacturer itself could be taxed under Entry 53;
both by a single piece of legislation. It was held that a
legislation could fall within the scope of more than one
Entry.
18. What can be clearly perceived from the afore cited
decisions is that the source of power to legislate has to be
traced to Article 245 read with 246, while the entries in
the three lists under the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution are fields of legislation, demarcated as
exclusively available to the Union, the State and
concurrently; with the Parliament having overriding
Page 15 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
powers in matters enumerated as concurrent. When
enacting a legislation, it is also permissible that the
Parliament or the State Legislature may choose to occupy
the various fields under the three lists but restricting to
such demarcation of powers delineated under Article 246.
19. Importing the above dictum to the subject issue,
the States’ power to legislate in the field of education as
covered under Entry 25 of LIST III has all the same to be
traced to Articles 245 & 246, especially when there is no
Union legislation on the subject/field. The power enabled
under the Presidential Order to make special provisions
for equitable opportunities and facilities in the matter of
education as conferred under Article 371D; being
education, is covered under Entry 25, and has also to be
traced to Articles 245 & 246. The Act of 1983, brought out
thus, consequentially confer the power on the State to
bring out the rules in furtherance and in implementation
of the Presidential Order. The Rules of 2017, hence, is
sourced to the power conferred under the Presidential
Order, at least, in so far as it determines the local areas
Page 16 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
and bring out a definition of local candidates who are
enabled the privilege of admission to medical colleges by
virtue of their status as a local candidate as per the
definition.
20. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu
Medical Officers Association and Others v. Union of
India and Others10, overruled an earlier decision of a
Three Judge Bench which found the reservation given to
in-service candidates for admission to post-graduate
courses in medicine, unconstitutional. It was held that
Entry 66 in List I has a very limited scope insofar as the
power conferred being coordination and determination of
standards which alone is in the exclusive domain of the
Union. However, conduct of examination, admission of
students, prescription of fee and reservation would be a
power conferred on the State under Entry 25 of List III.
The Rules of 2017 is one authorised by the statute, which
in turn traces the source of its power to the Constitution
and adopts the definition as available in the Presidential
Order.
10 (2021) 6 SCC 568
Page 17 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
21. Insofar as the judgment in C. Surekha (supra) the
decision in P.Sambamurthy v. State of A.P.11 was noticed,
wherein it was held that Article 371D does not militate
against the basic structure of the Constitution, except subarticle (5) of Article 371D; which led to denial of the
benefit of judicial review. The other question with respect
to reservation of 15% seats to the All-India Entrance
Examination was kept open. We find ourselves to be in
full agreement with only this finding of the High Court in
the impugned judgment.
22. Now, we come to the question of the purported
reading down carried out by the Division Bench of the
High Court. Having found that C. Surekha (supra) did not
interpret the Presidential Order of 1974, the impugned
judgment looked first at whether the petitioners fall under
the definition clauses at Clause 3 III (B) or (C). After
extracting the definitions as available in the Presidential
Order and the Rules of 2017; which are identical, it was
found that none of the petitioners fall under the said
definitions. The facts varied from case to case, but there
11 (1987) 1 SCC 362
Page 18 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
were even students who studied from the first to tenth
standard within the local area of the State of Telangana,
under the Rules of 2017, but moved away for the
secondary and higher secondary studies. The reasons
were multifarious and included varied situations of life,
including transfer of parents, better educational
opportunities and so on and so forth. The categoric
finding was that none of the petitioners fall under the two
definitions of ‘study’ or ‘residence’; which is also just
prior to the higher secondary qualifying examination, the
appearance in which had to be undertaken in the State of
Telangana.
23. Having found so, the Court went to the further
question as to whether the rule defining a local candidate
is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. Relying upon the decisions in Ahmedabad
Municipal Corpn. v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore12 and
Meenakshi Malik v. University of Delhi & Ors.13 as also
decisions of various High Courts, it was found to be
12 (1999) 8 SCC 139
13 (1989) 3 SCC 112
Page 19 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
violative of the mandate contained in Article 14 of the
Constitution. Relying on the trite principle that when a
harmonious construction is possible, no provision of a
statute or legislation should be struck down, the Division
Bench thus expanded the definition to include any student
who produced his residence certificate issued by a
competent authority of the Government of Telangana. At
the outset, we have to state that without a definition of
what constitutes residence or at least without reference to
a statute or rule prescribing the issuance of a residence
certificate, the directions issued by the High Court would
only result in an anomalous situation, making the
reservation unworkable and open to a series of litigation.
24. Yet again, as has been argued by the State and the
University, similar provisions have been upheld by this
Court in a number of decisions over very many years.
D.P.Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat and Ors.14 upheld
the levy of capitation fee on those students residing
outside Madhya Bharat. The object of the classification,
found to be justified, was the State’s desire to help at least
14 (1955) 1 SCC 58
Page 20 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
to some extent the students who are its residents,
encouraging education of the indigenous people,
especially when the State spends money for the upkeep
and running of the educational institutions; therein a
medical college. The aforesaid decision was followed in
Kumari N.Vasundara v. State of Mysore & Anr.15 which
prescribed conditions of residence for ten years in the
State of Mysore, at any time prior to the date of
application for the purpose of admission. Therein also an
argument was raised that, candidates whose parents, out
of necessity or by compelling reasons of transfers, while
remaining out of the Mysore State, cannot afford to
arrange for the residence of their children inside the
State. The argument was repelled by this Court on two
grounds. It was held that mere likelihood of hardship
cannot result in the striking down of a rule and in any
event, hardship is likely to arise in the working of almost
any rule, especially when applied to a selection of a
limited number of candidates, which alone cannot render
the rule unconstitutional. It was clearly held that, for relief
15 (1971) 2 SCC 22
Page 21 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
against such hardship and reducing the wide gap
between the number of available seats and the number of
aspirants, the grievance would have to be addressed
elsewhere; clearly indicating the policy formulation by
the government/legislature. The exclusive domain for
policy formulation was not liable to be interfered with,
unless validly challenged on gross discrimination, clear
arbitrariness, patent illegality, perversity or
unconstitutionality.
25. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India16
, considered the
question whether admission to institutions of higher
learning situated in a State can be confined to those
having their domicile within their State or who are
residents within the State for a specific number of years,
irrespective of merit and whether this would be consistent
with the constitutional values. Referring to the earlier
decisions of this Court, it was held that at least in the
scheme of admission to medical colleges, there can be a
departure from the principle of selection based on merit
16 1984 AIR 1420
Page 22 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
to bring about real equality of opportunity between those
who are unequal. It was famously observed that ‘equality
must not remain mere idle incantation, but it must become
a living reality for the large masses of people’ (sic). Such
departure was held to be justified on two considerations;
one the State interest and the other a region's claim of
backwardness.
26. Referring to D.P.Joshi (supra), it was found that
therein the capitation fee for persons belonging to outside
Madhya Bharat was justified on the assumption that those
who are bona fide residents of Madhya Bharat would
settle down and serve the needs of the people in the
State, after they qualify; though, there was nothing
observed in the judgment as to whether there was any
such justification pleaded. It was held that despite intrastate discrimination between persons resident in different
districts and regions of a State was frowned upon by this
Court, institutional reservation effected through
university-wise distribution was upheld. Referring also to
D.P.Joshi (supra) and Kumari N. Vasundara (supra);
Page 23 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
while unreservedly condemning wholesale reservation
on the basis of domicile or residential requirement, 70%
reservation was prescribed as an outer limit with 30%
being made available on an All-India basis. The
percentage was subsequently increased to 85% in the
case of Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) v. Motilal Nehru College17,
with the prescription of an entrance examination on an allIndia basis for the remaining 15% seats.
27. Anand Madaan v. State of Haryana18
, provided for
a reservation to those who are residents or domiciled in
the State of Haryana with a further condition of having
studied in the 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes as a regular
candidate in recognised institutions in Haryana. An
exception was carved out insofar as employees of the
State Government/All India services borne in the Haryana
cadre, employees of statutory bodies or Corporations
established under an Act of the State of Haryana and the
children/wards of the employees of Indian Defence
Services and Paramilitary services belonging to the
17 (1986) 3 SCC 727
18 (1995) 2 SCC 135
Page 24 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
Haryana State. This Court specifically referred to
Meenakshi Malik13 which was a lone case where a
student’s parents in Government service were posted
outside the country in the last two years of education,
which was otherwise commenced and continued in Delhi,
which was held to be condonable. Anand Madaan18
found, that was a singular grievance which similar
contention was not available to any of the petitioners and
upheld the rule in the State of Haryana.
28. We have to immediately notice that the learned
Advocate General for the State of Telangana who
appeared in the case has assured us that there would be
mitigation insofar as such candidates; which we will refer
to a little later.
29. Rajdeep Ghosh v. State of Assam and Others19
was another case in which reservation was made for local
candidates who studied all the classes from Class 8 to 12
in the State of Assam, who have also passed the qualifying
examination or its equivalent from the institutes situated
in the State of Assam. Relying on the cited precedents,
19 2018 INSC 718
Page 25 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
this Court held that the petitioners could not place any
relevant data showing that there were no coaching
facilities available in Assam and when some students can
afford to obtain coaching in other States, they stand on a
different footing, belonging to an affluent class who
cannot be adjusted in the State quota, especially when
they can seek admission in the All India quota, thus,
making the Rule not totally exclusionary.
30. In the wake of the binding precedents, holding the
field for three score and ten years; a lifetime, we are
unable to accede to the claim of the students who did not
fall under the definition that the rule is exclusionary,
arbitrary and constitutionally invalid. We cannot but
notice that in Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. (supra), the
rule providing reservation to those local students,
qualifying from educational institutions situated within the
municipal limits were merely expanded to include the
Ahmedabad Urban Development Area (AUDA). The Rule
was justified in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Ahmedabad Municipality, on the ground that the Medical
Page 26 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
College in question was established to cater to the needs
of the students residing in Ahmedabad city and hence
only those students who qualified from schools or
colleges within the Ahmedabad Municipality were
entitled to be treated as local students. The question
posed by this Court was whether those who are residents
of Ahmedabad city, who also contribute to the revenue of
the Municipality, could be denied the status of local
students, merely for reason that they study in schools
outside the Municipality limits, but within the AUDA. The
rule was held to include even the students of the
institutions in the AUDA on the ground that otherwise it
creates a differentia within the class of students of
Ahmedabad on the basis of their acquiring qualifications
from schools within the Municipal limit or within the limits
of AUDA, which would be arbitrary and violative of Article
14. There is no such unintelligible differentia arising in
this case.
Page 27 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
31. For all the reasons noticed above, we are unable to
uphold the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023 of the
High Court of Telangana.
32. Now, we come to the challenge against the
amended Rules of 2023. As has been argued by the State
and the University, the Reorganisation Act of Andhra
Pradesh permitted continuance of the benefit under
Article 371D in the newly formed States for a period of ten
years and there was a requirement for a new legislation,
after the expiry of that period. This prompted the State to
amend the rule by G.O (MS) No.33 dated 19.07.2024,
incorporating a fresh Rule 3 in the Rules of 2017. The said
amendment provided for the ‘Competent Authority Quota’
in the State of Telangana, which on incorporation in the
Rules of 2017 traces its power to legislate, to the
Regulation Act of 1983, which we already found has been
brought out under Entry 25 of List III, Seventh Schedule
read with Article 371D and the Presidential Order of 1974
as also Articles 245 & 246. The new rule provided for
reservation to an extent of 85% to those candidates who
Page 28 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
have either (i) studied in the educational institutions in the
local area for a period of not less than four consecutive
academic years ending with the academic year in which
he qualified for admission or (ii) where during the whole
or any part of the four consecutive years ending with the
academic year in which he qualified for admission,
resided in the local area but without studying in any
educational institutions, which candidate also should have
appeared for the qualifying examination in the State of
Telangana. The Division Bench, considering the amended
rule, noticed the decision in Pradeep Jain16, Anand
Madaan18 and Rajdeep Ghosh19 having laid down that the
requirement of residence/domicile for admission to
MBBS/BDS course is permissible, but without anything
more proceeded to consider whether the amended rule
has to be struck down or read down. After looking at the
principle of reading down, again Meenakshi Malik13 and
the earlier judgment dated 29.08.2023 were noticed to
find that the amended rule will have to be read down to
mean those petitioners having permanent residence or
Page 29 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
domicile in the State of Telangana, who will have to be
considered as a local candidate. At this point, it was
pointed out from the Bar that there are no
guidelines/rules framed by the State Government to
ascertain the domicile/permanent residence within the
State of Telangana. The State Government was directed to
frame guidelines to determine such domicile/residence
and directed to consider writ petitioners as per the newly
framed guidelines/rules.
33. We have already held that the pre-amended rule
defining a local candidate was perfectly in order, which
reasoning applies squarely to the amended rule also.
There was no warrant for a reading down when the
definition is clear, in consonance with the Presidential
Order and similar rules having been upheld by this Court
as coming out from the binding precedents. We find no
reason to take a different view with respect to the
amended rule also; 15% having been conceded to the AllIndia quota.
Page 30 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
34. We also observe that the learned Advocate
General has handed over a further amendment proposed,
incorporating a proviso to Rule 3 as follows: -
I. Provided that a candidate who studies outside
Telangana for any period during the requisite four
consecutive academic years ending with the
academic year in which he appeared, or as the case
may be, first appeared in the relevant qualifying
examination will be eligible to be considered if they
fall under any of the below categories:
1. Children of employees of the Telangana State
Government who have served or are serving
outside Telangana corresponding to the
candidate's year/s of study outside Telangana
2. Children of serving or retired employees
belonging to the Telangana cadre of All India
Services (IAS/IFS/IPS) who have served or are
serving outside Telangana corresponding to the
candidate's year/s of study outside Telangana
3. Children of defence personnel/ex-servicemen/
Central Armed Police Force service who at the time
of joining service, have declared their hometown to
be in the State of Telangana and who have served
or are serving outside Telangana corresponding to
the candidate's year/s of study outside Telangana
4. Children of employees of a
Corporation/Agency/ Instrumentality under
Government of Telangana, liable to be transferred
anywhere in India as per the terms and conditions
of his/her employment, who have served or are
serving outside Telangana corresponding to the
candidate's year/s of study outside Telangana
II. Subject to the candidate submitting Certificate of
employment from the competent authority for the
candidate's father/mother's service outside the State
for the period corresponding to the candidate's
year/s of study outside Telangana.
Page 31 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
35. The said proviso should allay and mitigate the
grievances of those who claim that they were taken out of
the State by compulsion of the movement of their parents
outside the State by reason of employment in
Government/All-India Services/ Corporations or Public
Sector Undertakings constituted as an instrumentality of
the State of Telangana as also defence and paramilitary
forces who trace their nativity to the State, subject to the
conditions thereunder. With only the said reservation, we
uphold the Rules of 2017 as it stood amended in 2024. We
were told that in the previous academic year on
concession made by the Government before this Court,
students who did not fall strictly under the definition were
granted admission to mitigate the grievance of the
hardship alleged and argued. We make it clear that the
admissions so made shall not be disturbed.
36. The appeals of the State and the University are
allowed, setting aside both the impugned judgments in
the Writ Petitions filed by the students. The Writ Petitions
and the SLP filed by the students before this Court, as a
Page 32 of 32
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 Etc.
consequence stand dismissed; however, with the
reservation insofar as candidates who are covered by the
proviso to Rule 3 as specified in paragraph 34 above. No
order as to costs.
37. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
...……….……………………. CJI.
(B. R. GAVAI)
….………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 01, 2025.
