Supreme Court Upholds Telangana Domicile Rule Mandating 4 Year Continuous Study In State With Relaxation To Children Of Govt Servants
The Supreme Court today allowed the appeal filed by the State of Telangana against 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.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran upheld the 2017 Rules, which mandated that a candidate must study for four consecutive years in the State of Telangana to qualify for the "local candidate" quota in MBBS and BDS courses.
To address the difficulties faced by children of parents who work in All India Services or PSUs, who get transferred outside the State, the State Government suggested an amendment, which the Court accepted. With this amendment, the Court upheld the 2017 Rules as amended in 2024.
The amendment is 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."
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, 2024. The amendment was done as per G.O no.33 dated 19.7.2024.
The amended Rule 3(a) of the 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 before the exam. In addition, the candidate has to pass the qualifying examination from the State of Telangana.
Notably, Rule 3(iii) provides 85% reservations to 'local candidates' of the State.
In its judgment, the High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao "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 also directed the State to frame guidelines to define "permanent residents."
The State, challenged the judgment, stating that it was competent to lay down a test of residence in the State to ascertain local candidates. It argued that the rule was brought for the benefit of marginalised sections, who do not have the capacity to go outside the State for coaching. The respondents- students, 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.
The Supreme Court traced the notification to the Presidential Order under Article 371D of the Constitution which allows the conferment of a benefit to those local candidates in the State of Telangana who can be given preferential admission to the medical courses. Also, there are precedents which uphold the earlier definition of local candidates.
Disagreeing with the High Court's view, the Supreme Court judgment authored by Justice Chandran observed :
"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 All- India quota."
Appearances: Senior Advocates Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankarnarayanan, A. Sudarshan Reddy for State.
Senior Advocates P.B. Suresh, Raghenth Basant, Prakash Deu Naik, Adv Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi for students. Senior Adv S. Sriram for the impleader.
Case Details : THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. Versus KALLURI NAGA NARASIMHA ABHIRAM AND ORS. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 859
Click here to read the judgment