Telangana HC junks Plea Challenging 100 percent reservation of MBBS, BDS Seats for local candidates under competent authority quota
Hyderabad: The High Court of Telangana on Monday dismissed the pleas challenging the State Government's reservation of 100% MBBS/BDS seats for the local candidates under the 'competent authority quota' in the medical colleges established in the State after June 2014.
While considering the matter, the HC bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar took note of the fact that 85% of competent authority quota seats alone had been reserved for local candidates for the State of Telangana in respect of institutions set up after formation of the State i.e., 02.06.2014.
The bench further considered the fact that it is permissible for the students of other States including the State of Andhra Pradesh to participate in 15% of competent authority quota seats.
Taking note of this, the bench dismissed the batch of petitions and noted, "In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions. In the result, the same fail and are accordingly dismissed."
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the Telangana Government stopped the 15% unreserved quota for admissions in 36 medical colleges in the State, which were established after the formation of the new State of Telangana.
Earlier, these seats were open for the admission of students from the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh as well. However, recently the State issued orders and made 100% of seats available only for the State domicile students.
Issuing a Government Order, recently Secretary of Medical and Health, Sam Rizvi amended the rules of admission to the State medical colleges in Telangana. The order stated, “These amendments have been made in accordance with the AP Reorganization Act and Article 371D of the Constitution.”
According to the amended rules, all the medical seats in the competitive authority quota in medical colleges constituted after June 2, 2014, will be filled up exclusively by the students from the State
However, it was decided that the unreserved quota will continue at the medical colleges that existed before the formation of the State of Telangana on June 2, 2014. There are 20 such colleges in the State and the provision of 15% unreserved quota will continue to operate there, enabling the students from Andhra Pradesh also compete for admission.
This new reservation policy was challenged before the Telangana High Court bench as a plea was filed before the HC bench by a resident of Andhra Pradesh and his daughter. The petitioner, whose daughter appeared for NEET 2023 examination, contended that reserving the medical seats exclusively to the students of Telangana was illegal and arbitrary.
Referring to the fact that his daughter intended to appear for counselling in Telangana, the petitioner urged the Court to stall operation of GO Ms. No. 72 through which the Government amended the reservation rules and introduced the provision for 100% reservation of seats in medical colleges in Telangana to students hailing from the State.
It was argued by the petitioner that the GO was highly arbitrary, irregular and it violated Section 95 and other provisions of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Arguing that the order infringed upon Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner further argued that the reservation policy was seen as discriminatory. It was contended by the petitioner that the unilateral decision taken by the Telangana Government showed a complete disregard for the principles of fairness, equality, and merit and it further denied students like the petitioner an equal opportunity for pursuing their chosen profession based on their hard work and academic performance.
While considering the issue, the HC initially expressed its concerns over the Government Order's incompatibility with the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974. According to this presidential order, the reservation of seats was provided in favour of local candidates in courses of study provided by the universities and other educational institutions without affecting the affirmative action policies of the state governments for women, or people belonging to scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST), or socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC).
Even though the HC bench expressed this prima facie observation, recently it passed an order allowing the State Government and Kaloji Narayana University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS) to declare the admission results after agreeing to consider six petitioner's candidature at the first instance with respect to 20 old medical colleges in Telangana, which were established before June 2, 2014.
Recently, the Supreme Court bench denied interfering in the matter noting that a similar plea was pending before the Telangana High Court bench. Before the High Court bench the local MBBS/BDS candidates of Andhra Pradesh challenged the validity of Rules (3)(II)(d), (e) (h) and Rule (3)(III)(a) which have been substituted vide G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 03.07.2023, in Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017.
The counsel for the petitioners contended that the 2017 Rules had been enacted under Sections 3 and 15 of the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 and the amendment to the 2017 Rules results in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 (the Presidential Order) and Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Therefore, it was argued by the petitioners that the State holds no power to amend the rules and further contended that except for the Presidential Order, the State has no power to place restriction in the matter of admission to MBBS/BDS courses on the basis of place of birth/residence. Further, the petitioners' counsel argued that the amendment to the 2017 Rules is in contravention of Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India and therefore the same is void.
On the other hand, the counsel for the State, the learned Advocate General clarified that under the amendment to the 2017 Rules, 85% of competent authority quota seats alone have been reserved for local candidates for the State of Telangana and it is open for the petitioners as well as the candidates of other States and Union Territories to participate in 15% of All India Quota seats.
It was submitted that the 15% All India Quota remains intact notwithstanding the amendment in the Rules and the same cannot be taken away by the State Government.
Further, the counsel for the State argued that Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act only refers to the existing quota and the mandate contained in Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act has not been violated by the State of Telangana as the quota has been maintained in respect of the institutions as on 01.06.2014 in respect of 20 colleges which were in existence in the State of Telangana.
The State Counsel contended that section 95 of the Reorganisation Act does not apply to the seats in the institutions which have come into existence after 02.06.2014. It was also urged that the word 'existing quota' used in Section 95 cannot have reference to future seats in educational institutions i.e. seats not in existence on 02.06.2014.
Meanwhile, the counsel for the KNRUHS argued that the intent and object of the Presidential Order is to provide equitable distribution of seats amongst local area and the petitioners are from the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The University further submitted that similar reservation was provided by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioners availed the benefit of reservation in their favour to the extent of 100% in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
While considering the matter, the HC bench referred to the Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order which provides that in case of non-statewide universities and educational institutions, out of the available seats, 85% of the seats shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to local area. Meanwhile, Paragraph 6 provides that 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by a state-wide university or a state-wide educational institution shall be reserved in favour of local candidates.
At this outset, the bench observed, "Thus, if paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Presidential Order and the amendment to the 2017 Rules is read together, it is evident that the amendment of the 2017 Rules is in consonance of the paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Presidential Order, as it provides reservation to the extent of 85% of the competent authority quota seats in favour of the local candidates. Therefore, the contention that the impugned amendment in the 2017 Rules is in contravention of the Presidential Order and is therefore void, is sans substance."
"In Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act, the legislature has used the expression ‘existing admission quotas’. Section 95 is clear and unambiguous. On plain and literal interpretation of Section 95, it is evident that the same mandates the successor states, namely State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Telangana to maintain ‘existing admission quotas’ in all government or private, aided or unaided, institutions of higher, technical and medical education for a period of ten years. The aforesaid provision refers to the quota in all the said institutions on the date of commencement of the Act, i.e., 02.06.2014, as Legislature has expressly referred to “existing admission quotas”. Section 95 does not apply to seats in educational institutions which come into existence after 02.06.2014. By amending the 2017 Rules the State Legislature has provided reservation in respect of 85% competent authority quota seats in respect of educational institutions which had been set up after 02.06.2014," further noted the HC bench.
Further referring to Article 371D of the Constitution of India, the bench noted that the concerned Article provides for special provisions in respect of State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
"In exercise of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371D of the Constitution of India, the President has framed Presidential Order. While dealing with issue No.(ii), it has already been held that the same is in consonance with the Presidential Order. The amendment incorporated in the 2017 Rules is not in contravention with Article 371D of the Constitution of India as the same also makes a provision for local candidates in respect of 85% of the competent authority quota seats," noted the HC bench.
"For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the inevitable conclusion is that the amendment to 2017 Rules is neither violative of Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act, 2014 nor Article 371D of the Constitution of India," it further observed.
While considering the question whether the 100% reservation in favour of local candidates of the State can be provided in respect of 85% of the competent authority quota seats in educational institutions set up after 02.06.2014 by way of amendment in the 2017 Rules, the HC bench referred to several orders by the Supreme Court and noted, "...reservation to the extent of 100% in favour of local candidates in the Sate of Telangana by way of amendment to the 2017 Rules had not been provided."
The bench took note of the submissions made by the Advocate General and the Counsel for the University stating that 85% of competent authority quota seats alone had been reserved for local candidates for the State of Telangana in respect of institutions set up after formation of the State i.e., 02.06.2014 and it is permissible for the students of other States including the State of Andhra Pradesh to participate in 15% of competent authority quota seats.
Referring to this, the bench noted, "...it is directed that the aforesaid provision, if not already made, shall be made in the seat matrix notified by the University."
"In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions. In the result, the same fail and are accordingly dismissed," it further noted.
To read the HC order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/telangana-hc-order-218960.pdf
Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement/treatment or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2024 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd