Summary
The definition of 'local candidate' for admission to MBBS and BDS courses in Telangana, requiring four consecutive years of study or residence in the local area ending with the qualifying examination, is valid. The 2017 Rules and their 2024 amendment trace their power to the 1983 Admission Act read with Article 371D, the 1974 Presidential Order and Articles 245 and 246, and are consistent with decades of precedent upholding residence-based reservation; the High Court could not expand or read down the definition under Article 226 on grounds of hardship. The State's proposed proviso protecting children of Telangana employees, All India Service officers, defence personnel and State instrumentality employees posted outside the State was recorded as the only mitigation.
Issues
- Whether the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017 defining 'local candidate' were framed under Article 371D and the Presidential Order of 1974, or only under the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 and Entry 25 of List III.
- Whether the definition of 'local candidate' based on four consecutive years of study or residence in the local area ending with the qualifying examination is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, so that the High Court could expand it to any holder of a Telangana residence certificate or read it down to those with permanent residence or domicile in Telangana.
- Whether the amended Rule 3 introduced by G.O. Ms. No. 33 dated 19 July 2024, providing an 85 percent Competent Authority Quota for local candidates, is valid.
Provisions considered
- Article 371D, Constitution of IndiaEnables the President by order to provide equitable opportunities in education for people of different parts of Andhra Pradesh and, after bifurcation, Telangana. The power so enabled, being in the field of education under Entry 25 of List III, is also traceable to Articles 245 and 246; the 1983 Act and the 2017 Rules implement the Presidential Order issued under it. (¶¶ 2, 7, 13, 19, 21, 32)
- Definition of local candidate, Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974A local candidate is one who studied in institutions in the local area for not less than four consecutive academic years ending with the year of the qualifying examination, or who resided there during that period without studying in any institution; the 1976 amendment added a seven-year maximum-study test for those who studied in different local areas. The Rules of 2017 adopt this identical definition. (¶¶ 7, 8, 19, 20, 22)
- Section 3, Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983Sub-section (2) makes admission subject to rules made by the Government for reservation of seats to SC, ST, Backward Classes and other notified categories and to the Presidential Order of 1974, a reference the High Court overlooked. The Act thus confers power to make rules implementing the Presidential Order, and the 2017 Rules and their 2024 amendment are sourced to it. (¶¶ 13, 14, 19, 32)
- Articles 245 and 246; Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of IndiaFollowing H.S. Dhillon, Kesoram Industries and NTPC, the source of legislative power lies in Articles 245 and 246 while the entries are only fields of legislation. Under Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association, admission of students and reservation fall within the State's power under Entry 25 of List III, Entry 66 of List I being confined to coordination and standards. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Rule 3(III)(B) and 3(III)(C); Rule 3 as substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 33 dated 19 July 2024, Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules, 2017The 'study' and 'residence' definitions of local candidate, and the amended Rule providing an 85 percent Competent Authority Quota for candidates who studied or resided in the local area for four consecutive years ending with qualification and appeared for the qualifying examination in Telangana, were upheld; there was no warrant for reading down a clear definition consistent with the Presidential Order. (¶¶ 9, 22, 32, 33, 35)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaBinding precedents from D.P. Joshi through Rajdeep Ghosh uphold residence and study based preference in medical admissions; hardship in the working of a rule does not make it unconstitutional, and unlike Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation there was no unintelligible differentia within a class. The rule was held neither exclusionary nor arbitrary. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30)
- Continuance of Article 371D benefits, Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014The Act continued the Article 371D benefit for ten years in the successor States, after which fresh provision was needed; this prompted the 2024 amendment introducing the Competent Authority Quota. (¶¶ 9, 32)
Held
- The High Court erred in holding that the Rules of 2017 and the 1983 Act were not framed under Article 371D or the Presidential Order. Section 3(2) of the 1983 Act expressly refers to the Presidential Order, and the State's power in the field of education under Entry 25 of List III, like the power enabled by the Presidential Order, is traceable to Articles 245 and 246. The Rules of 2017, at least insofar as they fix local areas and define local candidates, are sourced to the power conferred under the Presidential Order. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20)
- Entries in the three Lists of the Seventh Schedule are only fields of legislation; competence must be traced to Articles 245 and 246, and a legislation may fall within more than one entry. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The definition of local candidate by four consecutive years of study or residence in the local area ending with the qualifying examination is not exclusionary, arbitrary or unconstitutional: similar rules have been upheld for seventy years (D.P. Joshi, N. Vasundara, Pradeep Jain, Anand Madaan, Rajdeep Ghosh). The likelihood of hardship to children whose parents move out of the State cannot invalidate a rule, and relief against such hardship lies with the policy-maker, not the Court. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30)
- The High Court could not expand the definition to any student holding a Telangana residence certificate: without a definition of residence or a rule governing the issue of such certificates, the direction would make the reservation unworkable and invite litigation. Equally, there was no warrant to read down the amended Rule to cover permanent residents or domiciles of Telangana when the definition is clear and consistent with the Presidential Order. (¶¶ 23, 32, 33)
- The Rules of 2017 as amended in 2024 are upheld, with the sole reservation that the proviso to Rule 3 proposed by the Advocate General, which treats as eligible children of Telangana State Government employees, Telangana-cadre All India Service officers, defence and paramilitary personnel with declared hometown in Telangana and employees of State instrumentalities who served outside the State during the candidate's years of study outside Telangana (on production of an employment certificate), should mitigate the grievances of those taken out of the State by parental postings. Admissions already made on the State's concession under the interim arrangement are not to be disturbed. (¶¶ 28, 34, 35, 36)
Result
Appeals of the State and the University allowed; both High Court judgments (29 August 2023 and 5 September 2024) set aside; writ petitions and SLP of the students dismissed, subject to the proviso to Rule 3 set out in paragraph 34; admissions already granted on the State's concession not disturbed; no order as to costs; pending applications disposed of.