Recognizing the challenges faced by families in transferable jobs, the Supreme Court accepted amendments that provide relief to specific categories of candidates.
Published Sep 01, 2025 | 7:58 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 01, 2025 | 7:58 PM
Supreme Court
Synopsis: The Supreme Court upheld Telangana’s rule requiring four consecutive years of study or residence for medical admissions under the local quota, overturning the High Court’s relaxation for permanent residents.
The Supreme Court on Monday, 1 September delivered a ruling affecting thousands of medical aspirants by upholding the Telangana government’s requirement of four consecutive years of study or residence in the state for students seeking admission under the local quota in medical colleges.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the Telangana High Court’s September 2024 order that had relaxed this stringent requirement for permanent residents of the state.
The dispute centred around Rule 3(a) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, which was amended on 19 July 2024. The amended rule mandates that candidates seeking admission under the ‘Competent Authority Quota’ for local candidates must have studied or resided in Telangana for four consecutive years before appearing for the qualifying examination.
The rule reserves 85 percent of seats for “local candidates” in state medical colleges, leaving 15% for the all-India quota.
Several students who had completed their intermediate education in Andhra Pradesh and neighbouring states but were denied local quota benefits challenged the rule in the Telangana High Court. Many of these students argued that despite being permanent residents of Telangana, they were forced to study elsewhere due to various circumstances.
In September 2024, a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, headed by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao, had “read down” the rule, ruling that permanent residents of Telangana should not be compelled to fulfil the four-year study or residence condition.
The High Court had observed that applying the rule strictly to permanent residents would be unfair and directed the state government to frame guidelines defining “permanent residents.”
In its ruling, the High Court stated: “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.”
However, the court stopped short of striking down the amendment entirely, noting that doing so would entitle students from across India to seek admission in Telangana’s medical colleges.
Overturning the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that clear definitions are essential for the effective implementation of reservation policies.
“The absence of a statutory definition of residence or a residence certificate would lead to anomalies and unending litigation. The High Court’s reading down of the rule would make the reservation unworkable,” the bench observed in its judgment.
The court noted that the rule is grounded in Article 371D of the Constitution, which allows special provisions for local candidates in educational institutions. Justice K Vinod Chandran, authoring the judgment, emphasized that the rule is “not exclusionary, arbitrary and constitutionally invalid.”
“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,” the Supreme Court observed.
The judgment further noted that 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.”
Recognizing the challenges faced by families in transferable jobs, the Supreme Court accepted amendments that provide relief to specific categories of candidates.
The rules now include provisions for children of:
These candidates can avail domicile benefits if they submit employment certificates from competent authorities confirming their parents’ service outside the state during the corresponding study period.
The ruling reinstates the state’s original intent to benefit local students, particularly those from marginalized sections who may not have the resources to seek coaching or education outside the state. The Telangana government had argued that the rule was designed to help disadvantaged local students who cannot afford to study elsewhere.
The decision affects the current academic year’s medical admissions and establishes a precedent for other states with similar domicile requirements for professional courses.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
