HC relief to petitioners seeking MBBS, BDS admission as local candidates

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court’s division bench of CJ Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao on Thursday allowed 53 writ petitions filed by 80 students who aspired to get a MBBS/BDS seat in a medical college in the State as “local candidate”.

As the petitioners’ contention to get admission under the local candidate quota was not accepted, they challenged the validity of Rule 3(a) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended by GO 33 dated July 19, 2024.

The bench gave relief to the students by directing the government to allot them seat under the local candidate quota for medical admissions. It gave liberty to the government to frame appropriate guidelines or rules to define when a student qualifies as a permanent resident of the State; the concerned university will allot seat to the candidate. The petitioners challenged validity of Rule 3(a) as amended by GO 33.

The bench observed that in the absence of clear guidelines or rules framed by the government to determine a student's permanent residency or domicile status, the students should be allotted seat under the local quota, as they argued that Rule 3(a)--which pertains to the criteria for local candidates--violated their rights. They had completed Intermediate education in AP and other neighbouring States, but were still permanent residents of Telangana.

The court directed the government that Rule 3 (a) should be interpreted to include students, who are permanent residents of Telangana, even if they had completed their education outside the State. It clarified that the petitioners would be eligible for admission under the local quota, provided they prove their domicile or permanent residency in Telangana.

Allotment of govt land to IMG Bharata; petitioners have no public interest, contends respondents’ counsel

On Thursday the HC division bench “reserved orders” in the two PILs, one filed by ABK Prasad and the other by advocate T Sriranga Rao, seeking a direction to the CBI to probe the allotment of 850 acres of precious government land by the then AP government to IMG Academies Bharata Pvt Ltd in a non-transparent manner at a less cost to build, develop, own and operate sports academies.

Senior counsel Vedula Venkataramana, appearing for the company informed the court that the petitioners have no public interest except their private interest because they have considerable links to the Opposition party when the TDP was in power. The land was allocated to it after due deliberations by the Cabinet Sub-Committee and after the Cabinet approval.

He argued that the then TDP regime gave consent to the CBI to probe the MoU between the company and the government sale agreement; the low rate fixed during allotment in a non- transparent manner, which request was declined by the CBI at the first instance citing lack of resources and later it agreed. In 2014 Telangana was carved out under the AP Reorganisation Act 2014. The issue of land allotment relates to AP which is not there. The land allotted to the company is in Ranga Reddy district.

He informed the court that the land is vested with the Telangana government as directed by the HC division bench, which decision was also upheld by the Supreme Court. Now, there is nothing in the case which has to be investigated, as the petitioners--one a politician and another is an advocate--which clearly show that they have personal interest, rather than public interest.

Siddharth Luthra, senior SC counsel, appearing for P Ramulu, former MP (Nagarkurnool) and ex-TDP sports said the petitioners espouse political interest rather than any public interest. The petitioners have not divulged details of their political affiliation, rather suppressed this important aspect in the PILs, which shows their malice intent to settle political scores with the TDP; they have filed the PILs.

The petitioners had a close relationship and affiliation to the former AP CM YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, who was in judicial custody for various reasons and this issue was suppressed, contended Luthra. The then AP government had written to CBI to take up investigation, which was first not accepted citing lack of resources, but later agreed. The endeavour of the then AP government to the CBI was only a prayer, not a complaint, he contended.