NEET: Andhra Pradesh HC denies reservation to MBBS aspirant with Telangana issued caste certificate

Amaravati: The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently denied Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservation under the Andhra Pradesh State quota for MBBS admissions to a NEET-UG aspirant holding an ST certificate issued by the Telangana Government.

It was observed by the HC bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan observed that the recognition of the same community as a Scheduled Tribe in both States did not entitle the petitioner to reservation benefits in Andhra Pradesh.

Case Background:

The petitioner claims to belong to the Lambada community, which is recognised and notified as a scheduled tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. She was issued a Community certificate on 20.09.2021 by the State of Telangana.

It was submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Telangana and she pursued her education continuously from 8th standard to 12th standard at educational institutes in and around Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh for five consecutive academic years from 2021-2022 to 2025-2026. Therefore, it was submitted that the petitioner qualified as a "local candidate" for the Andhra University Area within the State of Andhra Pradesh as per the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974.

After clearing the National Eligibility-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) 2026, the petitioner secured an All India Rank of 189928 and a Category Rank of 3679 under the T category. Her grievance was that while accepting her status as a local candidate for Andhra University Area, her social status as a member of Scheduled Tribe was not being accepted while considering her as a local candidate, on the premise that the petitioner's community certificate dated 20.09.2021 had been issued by a competent authority in the State of Telangana and not in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The petitioner submitted that she cannot be issued a community certificate from a competent authority in Andhra Pradesh, because issuance of such certificate is contingent upon permanent residence of the petitioner/applicant and her family, which in the present case happens to be in the State of Telangana. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed the plea before the High Court.

Her counsel argued that the action of the authorities was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Denial of benefits of reservation to the petitioner merely based on the geographical location of the authority issuing her certificate has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and there is no rationale, argued the counsel.

It was also submitted that the petitioner also applied for admission in the State of Telangana, where her ST status is recognised, but on account of her schooling in Andhra Pradesh, she is not considered a local candidate in Telangana, which reduces her chances of securing a seat there, while in the State of Andhra Pradesh, though she is considered to be a local candidate, she would be considered in the general category, i.e. OC category and not under ST category.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents, including Dr NTR University of Health Sciences, refuted the arguments and submitted that the admissions are being made strictly in accordance with applicable provisions of law. The petitionerr is not entitled to the benefit of reservation while being considered under the category of local candidate. She is undoubtedly being afforded the benefit of reservation in the All India Quota and that she is getting due benefit of being considered as a local candidate though in the OC category.

Further, it was contended that there is no mandate for considering her candidature under the local category as an ST candidate. It was reiterated that admissions are conducted strictly in accordance with terms and conditions mentioned in the Prospectus for the academic year 2026-27 as well as applicable regulations.

It was further submitted that it is categorically mentioned in Clause 8 of the Prospectus that it is only a valid community certificate issued by the competent authority to candidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh, which shall be considered for extending the benefit of reservation.

Observations by the High Court:

The HC bench perused the submissions by the parties and also various Government Orders which were referred to during the course of arguments. The bench noted that "Local Candidate" is defined in the Andhra Pradesh Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Undergraduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007. "Reservation in favour of the local candidates" is also detailed in Clause 7 ofthe Prospectus issued for the academic year 2026-2027, noted the Court.

"As per the Prospectus for academic year 2026-27, it is further clearly mentioned that it is only the caste certificates issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, which shall be considered for admissions," noted the bench.

The bench also took note of Clause 10. Clause 10.3 stated that "In case of Minority candidates, the Minority certificate issued by District Minorities Welfare Officer, Government of AP to be furnished in support of their claim."

Accordingly, the bench observed, "In the given facts and circumstances, there is no ground whatsoever to cause interference in present matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Action taken by respondents is in complete conformity and in consonance with the applicable rules, regulations, terms and conditions mentioned in Prospectus."

The bench noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Puducherry Scheduled Caste People Welfare Association (supra) had noted that Government Orders restricting benefit of reservation only to persons of Scheduled Caste of said Union Territory opposed to the Presidential Order, which, it was stated, did not speak of origins of “the Union Territory of Puducherry”, but only of “resident”.

"Apart from the fact that this is not the position in the present case, there was no discussion of the previous judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra), which has been rendered by a Bench of Five Judges. Judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao still holds the field and has been quoted with approval in subsequent judgments of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court itself, including the case of Bir Singh Vs Delhi Jal Board and others, which is also a judgment rendered by a Bench of Five Hon‟ble Judges," noted the HC bench.

The Court further noted that in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, the Supreme Court held that a Member of a disadvantaged group on voluntary migration is not entitled to avail of benefits or privileges intended for disadvantaged groups in a new place. In the said case, the petitioner, who was seeking admission to a medical college in the State of his migration based on his Scheduled Tribe status in the original State, was held not entitled to this benefit.

Further, the bench observed that in the case of Ranjana Kumari Vs State of Uttarakhand and others, a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because the same caste is recognised as Scheduled Caste in the migrant State, the migrant cannot be recognised as Scheduled Caste of migrant State. Petitioner/appellant therein, belonging to a particular Scheduled Caste ofthe State of Punjab, married a person belonging to the same caste of the State of Uttarakhand and migrated to said State. The State of Uttarakhand issued a certificate to the appellant based on which she claimed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste of the State of Uttarakhand. This claim was negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the bench concluded, "In the present case, petitioner is admittedly a resident of Telangana; her community certificate has been issued by competent authority in the State of Telangana; she is treated as a local candidate in the State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of her pursuing her studies in Andhra Pradesh for five consecutive years from 2021-22 to 2025-26. Admittedly, she is afforded the benefit of being a local candidate in Andhra Pradesh and ST category in the All India Quota. In the given factual matrix, the applicable provisions and position of law as discussed in the foregoing paras, the action of respondent Nos.2 & 3 is absolutely justified and is unimpeachable, and the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of reservation under the ST category in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Argument: The argument that the community to which the petitioner belongs is also recognised to be a Scheduled Tribe in Andhra Pradesh, entitling her to such reservation, andthat the same cannot be denied only on the ground of certificate in this regard by the authority in Telangana, is clearly devoid of any merit in the given facts and circumstances; hence, rejected."

"Thus, keeping in view the factual position, constitutional mandate and various judgments of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court as referred to above, we do not find any ground to cause interference in this matter," held the bench.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/10/15/andhra-pradesh-hc-479766.pdf

Also Read: NEET UG: Vacant Seats Cannot Justify Category Change After Results, says Madras HC