Telangana High CourtBindu Bhavya Siddapu Reddy vs Union Of India, on 11 September, 2023THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE\n                                 AND\n        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR\n    + W.P.Nos.18047, 18216, 19210, 20676, 20880, 21008,\n     23100, 23101, 23102, 23103, 23104, 23105, 23106,\n     23107, 23108, 23109, 23110, 23112, 23198, 23199,\n     23200, 23267, 23361, 23362, 23363, 23364, 23369,\n     23374, 23378, 23382, 23390, 23412, 23444, 23454,\n     23472, 23487, 23509, 23511, 23513, 23617, 23631,\n     23667, 23679, 23719, 23734, 23772, 23774, 23825,\n     23840, 23859, 23894, 23908, 24052, 24062, 24066,\n     24121, 24122, 24128, 24179, 24190, 24285, 24372,\n    24379, 24461, 24491, 24746, 24755, 24798, 24825 and\n                      24826 of 2023\n\n%      Date: 11.09.2023\n\n\n#      Sanikommu Venkata Sai Bharath Reddy,\n       and others.\n                                                   ... Petitioners\n                                v.\n$      Union of India,\n       Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Health and\n       Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011,\n       and others.\n                                                  ... Respondents\n\n! Counsel for the petitioners:      Mr. Anup Koushik Karavadi,\n          Mr. P.Thirumala Rao, Ms. I.Mamu Vani,\n          Mr. Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Mr. Srinivasa Srikanth,\n          Mr. Rajagopallavan Tayi, Mr. S.V.Ramana,\n          Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Ms. Y.Ratna Prabha,\n          Mr.Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, Mr. Palle Nageswar Rao,\n          Mr. R.Yella Reddy, Mr. Basa Chanakya,\n          Mr. Anirudh Sadhu, Mr.B.Srinarayana,\n          Mr. C.M.R.Velu, Mr. Rama Rao Kochiri, Ms. S.Madhavi,\n          Mr. Sk. Fakruddin Ali, Mr. P.Vengala Reddy,\n          Mr. P.Shravan Kumar Goud, Mr. Satyanarayana\n          Dharmapuri, Ms. G.Shilpa, Mr. Ch.Venkat Raman,\n          Mr. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla and Mr. A.Durga Bhaskar\n                                   2\n\n\n\n\n^ Counsel for the respondents :         Mr. B.S.Prasad,\n                                        learned Advocate General\n\n                  Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar,\n                  learned Deputy Solicitor General of India\n\n                  Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao,\n                  learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana\n                  Rao University of Health Sciences\n\n                  Mr. N.Praveen Kumar,\n                  learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health\n                  and Family Welfare\n\n                  Mr. S.Vijay Prashanth,\n                  learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Vaidya\n                  Vidhana Parishad (TVVP)\n\n                  Ms. Gorantla Sri Ranga Pujitha, learned Standing\n                  Counsel for National Medical Commission\n\n                 Mr. P.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for\n                 the State of Andhra Pradesh,\n\n                 Mr. C.Appaiah Sharma\n< GIST:\n    HEAD NOTE:\n\n? CASES REFERRED:\n        1. (1984) 3 SCC 654\n        2. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 954\n        3. (1990) 2 SCC 259\n        4. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 535\n        5. AIR 1993 SC 477\n        6. (2021) 11 SCC 401\n        7. 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 624\n        8. 2022 (2) ALD 658 (AP) (DB)\n        9. (1984) 3 SCC 706\n        10. (2016) 2 SCC 328\n        11. AIR 1963 SC 946\n        12. (2005) 2 SCC 217\n        13. (1985) 3 All.ER 300\n        14. (2005) 1 SCC 625\n        15. 2023 SCC Online SC 994\n        16. 1994) 5 SCC 509\n                                       3\n\n\n\n\n        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE\n                                    AND\n         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR\n\n\nWrit Petition Nos.18047, 18216, 19210, 20676, 20880, 21008,\n23100, 23101, 23102, 23103, 23104, 23105, 23106, 23107,\n23108, 23109, 23110, 23112, 23198, 23199, 23200, 23267,\n23361, 23362, 23363, 23364, 23369, 23374, 23378, 23382,\n23390, 23412, 23444, 23454, 23472, 23487, 23509, 23511,\n23513, 23617, 23631, 23667, 23679, 23719, 23734, 23772,\n23774, 23825, 23840, 23859, 23894, 23908, 24052, 24062,\n24066, 24121, 24122, 24128, 24179, 24190, 24285, 24372,\n24379, 24461, 24491, 24746, 24755, 24798, 24825 and 24826 of\n2023\n\n\nCOMMON ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)\n\n       The petitioners are local candidates of State of\n\nAndhra Pradesh and are aspirants seeking admission to\n\nMBBS/BDS Courses in the State of Telangana under the\n\nnon-local category. In these petitions, the petitioners have\n\nimpugned the validity of Rules (3)(II)(d), (e) (h) and Rule\n\n(3)(III)(a) which have been substituted vide G.O.Ms.No.72,\n\ndated 03.07.2023, in Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges\n\nAdmission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules,\n\n2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2017 Rules'). In order4to appreciate petitioners' grievance, reference to few facts is\n\nnecessary which are stated infra.(i) FACTUAL MATRIX:2.    The factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. The\n\nParliament enactedNational Medical Commission Act,\n\n2019.Under the Act, National Medical Council was\n\nconstituted with effect from 25.09.1990. The National\n\nTesting Agency (NTA) issued a notification on 06.03.2023.In pursuance of the aforesaid notification, the petitioners\n\nas well as other candidates submitted their applications\n\nbetween 6th March, 2023 and 6th April, 2023 for appearing\n\nin National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test undergraduate\n\nexamination (hereinafter referred to as 'NEET UG'). NEET\n\nUG examination was held on 07.05.2023. The results of\n\nthe   said   examination   were    declared   on 13.06.2023.\n\nThereafter, the Rules were amended on 03.07.2023 by\n\nwhich 100% reservation has been provided in respect of\n\n85% of competent authority quota seats in favour of local\n\ncandidates in educational institutions established after\n\n02.06.2014 i.e., the date of formation of State of Telangana.5Thereafter,      the    University     issued      notification   on\n\n06.07.2023 inviting online applications for admission to\n\nMBBS/BDS courses in the State of Telangana.3.   In the aforesaid factual background, the challenge\n\nhas been made to validity of Rules (3)(II) (d), (e), (h) and\n\nRule (3)(III)(a) of the 2017 Rules which have been\n\nsubstituted, vide G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 03.07.2023.(ii) ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT:4.   It is relevant to mention herein that some of the\n\npetitioners in this batch of writ petitions had filed a writ\n\npetition underArticle 32of the Constitution of India which\n\nwas registered as W.P (Civil) No.916 of 2023. The aforesaid\n\nwrit petition was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court\n\ndated 31.08.2023. The said order reads as under:"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and\n      the learned counsel for the intervenors/impleadors.2. Learned counsels have not satisfied us as to\n      the reason for filing the petition underArticle 32of\n      the Constitution of India, particularly when the writ\n      involving similar questions are pending before the\n      High Court.63. Learned counsels state that there is urgency\n      in the matter. If that be so, we see no reason why the\n      High    Court     would   not     take    up   the     matter\n      expeditiously to pass interim orders if the Court\n      considers it appropriate and in accordance with law.4. The writ petition and the applications for\n      intervention/impleadment          and      direction     are,\n      accordingly, dismissed.5. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand\n\n      disposed of."(iii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:5.   Learned          counsel     for          the    petitioners     in\n\nW.P.Nos.18216, 24746, 24755, 24798, 24825 and 24826\n\nof 2023 has submitted that the 2017 Rules have been\n\nenacted underSections 3and15of the Telangana\n\nEducational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and\n\nProhibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (hereinafter\n\nreferred to as 'the 1983 Act'). It is further submitted that\n\nthe amendment to the 2017 Rules results in violation of\n\nfundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners underArticles 14, 15and16of the Constitution of India, the\n\nAndhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of\n\nAdmissions) Order, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the7Presidential Order') andSection 95of the Andhra Pradesh\n\nReorganisation Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'theReorganisation Act'). Therefore, the State Government has\n\nno power to amend the Rules. It is also urged that except\n\nfor the Presidential Order, the State Government has no\n\npower to place restriction in the matter of admission to\n\nMBBS/BDS       courses    on       the   basis   of   place   of\n\nbirth/residence. It is also argued that the amendment to\n\nthe 2017 Rules is in contravention ofArticle 13(2)of the\n\nConstitution of India. Therefore, the same is void. It is also\n\nurged that in view of the mandate contained inArticle 16(3)of the Constitution of India, the State Government has no\n\npower to amend the Rules.6.   Alternatively, it is submitted that the prescription of\n\n100% reservation for admission to MBBS/BDS courses in\n\nrespect of local candidates of the State of Telangana is\n\ncontrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in8Pradeep Jain v. Union of India1 andSatyajit Kumar v.\n\nState of Jharkhand2.7.     The attention of this Court has been invited to\n\nparagraphs 37 and 42 of the common order dated\n\n29.08.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in\n\nW.P.No.21268 of 2023 and it is submitted that the learned\n\nstanding counsel for the University has argued in the said\n\nbatch of writ petitions that the Presidential Order applies\n\nto admission to medical courses and is the basis for\n\nframing    the   2017   Rules.       It   is   contended   that   the\n\namendment to the Rules is in violation of the Presidential\n\nOrder and is therefore contrary toArticle 371Dof the\n\nConstitution of India. It is further submitted that the\n\namendment is violative ofSection 95of the Reorganisation\n\nAct.8.     It is argued that after declaration of the results of\n\nNEET UG on 13.06.2023, the 2017 Rules have been\n\namended which is not permissible, as the Rules of the\n\n\n1 (1984) 3 SCC 654\n2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 9549game cannot be changed midway. It is pointed out thatSection 95of the Reorganisation Act mandates the State\n\nGovernment      to     maintain       quota      for    admission    to\n\neducational institutions for a period of ten years. The\n\npetitioners, therefore, had legitimate expectation that the\n\nState Government would maintain the quota for admission\n\nto non-local candidates, in view ofSection 95of the\n\nReorganisation Act. However, by amending the 2017 Rules,\n\nthe legitimate expectation of the petitioners has been\n\nviolated. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the\n\nHon'ble      Supreme     Court        inS.Prakasha         Rao    v.\n\nCommissioner of Commercial Taxes3 and inVeena\n\nVadini Teachers Training Institute v. State of Madhya\n\nPradesh4.9.    Learned        counsel      for      the         petitioners   in\n\nW.P.Nos.18047, 19210, 20880, 23101, 23102, 23103,\n\n23104, 23105, 23106, 23107, 23108, 23109, 23110,\n\n23198, 23199, 23200, 23267, 23361, 23362, 23363,\n\n23364, 23369, 23374, 23378, 23382, 23390, 23412,\n\n3 (1990) 2 SCC 259\n4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 5351023444, 23513, 24121, 24122, 24128 and 24379 of 2023\n\nhas adopted the submissions made by learned counsel for\n\nthe petitioners in W.P.Nos.18216, 24746, 24755, 24798,\n\n24825 and 24826 of 2023 and has submitted that\n\nG.O.Ms.No.72, dated 03.07.2023 insofar it pertains to Rule\n\n(3)(II)(h) of the 2017 Rules is in utter disregard to the\n\nprincipleslaid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court inIndra Sawhney v. Union of India5 and inChebrolu Leela\n\nPrasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh6. It is further\n\nsubmitted    that     G.O.Ms.No.72,   dated   03.07.2023   is\n\nrestrictive in nature and imposes unreasonable restriction\n\non the process of admission in medical UG courses in the\n\nState of Telangana.While referring to the decision of\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court inChebrolu Leela Prasad Rao(supra), it is contended that the Supreme Court has\n\ndeprecated the conduct of the Government of Andhra\n\nPradesh and Telangana in making reservations beyond\n\npermissible limits. It is urged that the reservations cannot\n\nbe contrary to the Presidential Order.\n\n\n5 AIR 1993 SC 477\n6 (2021) 11 SCC 4011110.   Learned       counsel      for   the         petitioners   in\n\nW.P.Nos.21008, 23198 and 23894 of 2023 has adopted the\n\nsubmissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners in\n\nW.P.Nos.18216, 24746, 24755, 24798, 24825 and 24826\n\nof 2023 and has relied on decisions of Division Bench of\n\nthis Court inPhanindra Kumar Nagisetty v. NTR\n\nUniversity     of   Health     Sciences7andDr.   Sireesha\n\nSimhadri v. State of Andhra Pradesh8.11.   Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.\n\n23100, 23112, 23454, 23617, 23679, 23719, 23734,\n\n23825, 23840 and 23859 of 2023 has adopted the\n\nsubmissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners in\n\nW.P.Nos.18216, 24746, 24755, 24798, 24825 and 24826\n\nof 2023.(iv) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE:12.   On the other hand, learned Advocate General, at the\n\noutset, clarified that under the amendment to the 2017\n\n\n7 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 624\n8 2022 (2) ALD 658 (AP) (DB)12Rules which have been impugned in these writ petitions,\n\n85% of competent authority quota seats alone have been\n\nreserved for local candidates for the State of Telangana and\n\nit is open for the petitioners as well as the candidates of\n\nother States and Union Territories to participate in 15% of\n\nAll India Quota seats. The aforesaid 15% All India Quota\n\nremains intact notwithstanding the amendment in the\n\nRules and the same cannot be taken away by the State\n\nGovernment.13.   It is submitted that amendment to the 2017 Rules\n\nwas made on 03.07.2023. Thereafter, the University issued\n\na notification on 06.07.2023 inviting applications for\n\nregistration for counselling for admission to MBBS/BDS\n\ncourses. Therefore, it is contended that on the facts of the\n\ncase, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has no\n\napplication. It is also urged that in any case, the\n\ncandidates of other States and Union Territories cannot\n\nhave legitimate expectation to seek reservation in the\n\ninstitutions which have been established after formation of\n\nthe State of Telangana i.e., 02.06.2014.1314.   It is argued thatSection 95of the Reorganisation Act\n\nonly refers to the existing quota and the mandate\n\ncontained inSection 95of the Reorganisation Act has not\n\nbeen violated by the State of Telangana as the quota has\n\nbeen maintained in respect of the institutions as on\n\n01.06.2014 in respect of 20 colleges which were in\n\nexistence in the State of Telangana. It is argued thatsection 95of the Reorganisation Act does not apply to the\n\nseats in the institutions which have come into existence\n\nafter 02.06.2014. It is also urged that the word 'existing\n\nquota' used in Section 95 cannot have reference to future\n\nseats in educational institutions i.e., seats not in existence\n\non 02.06.2014. Learned Advocate General while inviting\n\nthe   attention   of   this   Court   toSection   95of   the\n\nReorganization Act, has contended that the Presidential\n\nOrder applies to State of Andhra Pradesh as well as the\n\nState of Telangana.15.   It is argued that amendment in the 2017 Rules is in\n\nconsonance with the Statement and Objects of the\n\nReorganisation Act. It is contended that the amendment is14in consonance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Presidential\n\nOrder. It is submitted that the petitioners have no right to\n\nseek admission against quota reserved for local candidates\n\nin respect of 34 medical colleges in the State of Telangana\n\nwhich have been established after 02.06.2014. It is further\n\npointed out that out of the 34 colleges, 20 institutions are\n\ngovernment       institutions    whereas       14   educational\n\ninstitutions are set up by private entities.16.   It is also argued that State of Telangana enjoys a\n\nspecial status underArticle 371Dof the Constitution and\n\ntherefore, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court inPradeep Jain(supra) does not apply to the fact situation of\n\nthe case.In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance\n\nhas been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme\n\nCourt inReita Nirankani v. Union of India9 andSandeep\n\nv. Union of India10. It is contended that under the\n\nPresidential Order in respect of institutions established\n\nafter 02.06.2014, the State Government can prescribe\n\nreservation.9 (1984) 3 SCC 706\n10 (2016) 2 SCC 32815(v) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSITY:17.   Learned Standing Counsel for the University in some\n\nof the writ petitions has contended that the intent and\n\nobject of the Presidential Order is to provide equitable\n\ndistribution of seats amongst local area and the petitioners\n\nare from the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is further\n\nsubmitted that similar reservation was provided by the\n\nState of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioners have availed of\n\nthe benefit of reservation in their favour to the extent of\n\n100% in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners now\n\nwant the admission against the seats in medical colleges\n\nwhich are meant for local candidates of State of Telangana.It is reiterated that the lawlaid down inPradeep Jain(supra) does not apply to the State of Telangana and the\n\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court inChebrolu Leela\n\nPrasad Rao(supra) refers to employment in a scheduled\n\narea and does not apply to a case of educational\n\ninstitutions.1618.    It is fairly submitted by the learned standing counsel\n\nfor the University that if there is any discrepancy in the\n\nseat matrix, which has been published for admission to\n\nMBBS/BDS courses and the statement made by learned\n\nAdvocate General with regard to the impact of the Rules,\n\nthe seat matrix would be set right.(vi)   REJOINDER      SUBMISSIONS       ON    BEHALF     OF\n\nPETITIONERS:19.    Learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of\n\nrejoinder, submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court inSandeep(supra) does not apply to the\n\nfacts of the instant case and the contention made by\n\nlearned Advocate General and learned standing counsel for\n\nUniversity, that decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court inPradeep Jain(supra) does not apply to the State of\n\nTelangana is incorrect. It is also argued that the provision\n\nunderSection 95of the Reorganization Act was made for a\n\nperiod of ten years. However, arrangement which was made\n\nafter bifurcation of States, namely State of Telangana and\n\nthe State of Andhra Pradesh has continued for a period of17nine years and no plausible explanation has been offered\n\non behalf of the State Government, to change the same in\n\nthe last year.(vii) ANALYSIS:20.   We have considered the submissions made on both\n\nsides and perused the record.ISSUES:21.   The issues which arise for consideration in these writ\n\npetitions can be summarised as under:(i)     Whether the State Legislature is competent to amend\n\n              the 2017 Rules?(ii)    Whether impugned amendment in the 2017 Rules is\n\n              in violation of the Presidential Order, 1974 and\n\n              therefore, void?(iii)   Whether impugned amendment in the 2017 Rules is\n\n              repugnant toArticle 371Dof the Constitution of India\n\n              andSection     95of   the   Andhra   Pradesh\n\n              Reorganisation Act, 2014?18(iv)   Whether the petitioners had a legitimate expectation\n\n             underSection   95of   the   Andhra   Pradesh\n\n             Reorganization Act, 2014 which had been violated by\n\n             amendment of the 2017 Rules, on 03.07.2023?(v)    Whether rules of the game have been changed\n\n             midway by way of amending the 2017 Rules, on\n\n             03.07.2023? and(vi)   Whether the reservation to the extent of 100% in\n\n             favour of local candidates of the State of Telangana\n\n             can be provided in respect of 85% of the competent\n\n             authority quota seats in educational institutions set\n\n             up after 02.06.2014 i.e., formation of State, by way\n\n             of amendment in the 2017 Rules, and if yes, whether\n\n             the same is permissible?22.   We now proceed to deal with the issues ad seriatim.\n\n\nIssue No. (i)(i)    Whether the State Legislature is competent to\n\n             amend the 2017 Rules?23.   The State Legislature in exercise of powers conferred\n\nby Entry 25 of the Concurrent List to the Seventh Schedule19of the Constitution of India has enacted an Act, namelyTelangana     Educational         Institutions        (Regulation   of\n\nAdmission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983.Section 3of the 1983 Act deals with regulation of\n\nadmission into educational institutions.Section 3enables\n\nthe Government to frame Rules.Section 15of the 1983 Act\n\ndeals with powers of the State Government to make rules\n\nfor carrying out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of\n\npowers underSection 3read withSection 15(1)of the 1983\n\nAct, the 2017 Rules have been framed.24.   From perusal of paragraph 3 of G.O.Ms.No.114,\n\ndated 05.07.2017 reads as under:NOTIFICATION3.    In exercise of the powers conferred bySection 3read with sub-section (1) ofSection 15of    the   Telangana       Educational        Institutions\n      (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of\n      Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act No.5 of 1983), in\n      supersession    of    the    earlier   rules     regarding\n      preparation of seat matrix and the selection\n      procedure for admission into MBBS & BDS\n      Courses in the Competent Authority quota, the\n      Governor of Telangana hereby makes the rules for20preparation of seat matrix and the selection\n       procedure for admission into MBBS & BDS\n       Courses under the Competent Authority Quota:-These Rules may be called the Telangana\n       Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission\n       into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017.25.   Thus, it is evident that the 2017 Rules have been\n\nframed under the 1983 Act.Section 15of Telangana\n\nGeneral Clauses Act, 1308 Fasli provides that power to\n\nmake rules includes the power to add, vary or rescind.\n\nTherefore, the State Government has power to amend the\n\n2017 Rules also. The validity of neitherSection 3norSection 15of the 1983 Act has been assailed by the\n\npetitioners in these petitions.26.   The relevant extract ofArticle 35of the Constitution\n\nof India reads as under:35.   Legislation    to    give   effect   to   the\n       provisions of this Part- Notwithstanding anything in\n       this Constitution,-(a) Parliament shall have, and the legislature of a\n       State shall not have, power to make laws-(i) with respect to any of the matters which\n       under clause (3) of article 16, clause (3) of article 32,21article 33 and article 34 may be provided for by law\n       made by Parliament; and(ii) for prescribing punishment for those acts\n       which are declared to be offences under this Part,\n              And Parliament shall, as soon as may be after\n       the commencement of this Constitution, makes laws\n       for prescribing punishment for the acts referred to in\n       sub-clause (ii)27.Article 16of the Constitution of India deals with\n\nequality   of       opportunity         in     the       matters     of      public\n\nemployment.Article 16(3)reads as under:16. Equality of opportunity in matters of\n       public employment.- (1) xxx\n                                     (2) xxx\n              (3)   Nothing     in     this    article    shall    prevent\n       Parliament from making any law prescribing, in\n       regard to a class or classes of employment or\n       appointment to an office under the Government of, or\n       any local or other authority within, a State or Union\n       territory, any requirement as to residence within that\n       State or Union Territory prior to such employment or\n       appointment.28.    Thus, perusal ofArticle 35(a)in conjunction withArticle 16makes it clear that Parliament is competent to\n\nmake    any     law      with    regard        to    class    or     classes     of\n\nemployment or for appointment to an office under the22Government of, any local or other authority within a State\n\nor Union Territory, any requirement as to residence within\n\nthat State or Union Territory prior to such employment or\n\nappointment. Neither the 1983 Act nor the 2017 Rules or\n\namendment thereof deal with employment or appointment\n\nto an office. Therefore, the contention that underArticle\n\n16(3)of the Constitution of India Parliament alone has\n\npower to make the impugned Rules and State Legislature\n\nhas   no     competence        to   amend      the     2017   Rules   is\n\nmisconceived. Therefore, the issue No.(i) is answered in the\n\naffirmative     by   stating    that     the   State    Legislature   is\n\ncompetent to amend the 2017 Rules.Issue No.(ii)(ii)    Whether impugned amendment in the 2017\n\n              Rules is in violation of the Presidential Order,\n\n              1974 and therefore, void?29.   In Rule (1)(v), the expression "competent authority\n\nseats" has been defined to mean as follows:-23(v) "Competent Authority Seats" means the seats\n       earmarked from out of the sanctioned intake of seats\n       in MBBS/BDS Courses in each College to be filled by\n       the Committee for Admissions constituted by the\n       Competent Authority."30.   Rule (3)(III) of the 2017 Rules deals with Rules of\n\nreservation for admission. Rule (3)(III)(1) reads as under:Rule (3)(III) : Rules of Reservation for Admission (AREA)\n\n              Seats   shall   be        reserved    for    the       following\n       categories in admissions to professional courses\n              (1) Region-wise reservation of seats:(a)   admission      to     85%      of   the        'Competent\n       Authority Seats' in each course shall be reserved for\n       the local candidates and the remaining 15% of the\n       'Competent Authority seats shall be unreserved seats\n       as specified in the Andhra Pradesh Educational\n       Institutions (Regulations and Admissions) Order, 1974\n       subsequently amended.(b)     In respect        of State side institutions,\n       admission into 85% of seats in each course shall be\n       reserved for the candidates belonging to three local\n       areas in the State specified in this sub rule namely,\n       Andhra University Area (Andhra), Osmania University\n       Area (Telangana) and Sri Venkateswara University\n       Area     (Rayalaseema)       in     the     ratio      of     42:36:22\n       respectively and the balance of 15% seats shall be\n       unreserved seats:2431.   The 2017 Rules were amended by G.O.Ms.No.72,\n\ndated 03.07.2023, which reads as under:AMENDMENT\n          In the said rules, in Rule 3,-(1) In sub-rule-II,(a) For clause (d) & (e), the following shall be\n                 substituted, namely,\n          "d) 85% of seats (competent authority quota) are\n          reserved for local candidates in non-state wide\n          institutions       and     15%     seats     of    competent\n          authority quota are treated as un-reserved seats\n          in colleges established prior to 2nd June, 2014"."e) 15% of competent authority quota seats shall\n          be unreserved in each college and reservation\n          shall be maintained as far as possible for un-reserved seats on total seats available in colleges\n          established prior to 2nd June, 2014".(b) After existing clause (g), the following new\n                 clause shall be added namely:-"h) In colleges established after 2nd June, 2014,\n          100% of seats under Competent Authority Quota\n          are     reserved    for    local   candidates       and   all\n          applicable reservations shall be implemented".Rule 3(III)(a)\n          "(a)    admission     to    85%     of     the    "Competent\n          Authority Seats" in each course shall be reserved\n          for the local candidates and the remaining 15%\n          of the "Competent Authority Seats" shall be25unreserved seats as specified in the Telangana\n           Educational    Institutions   (Regulations   and\n           Admissions) Order, 1974 as amended from time\n           to time, in the colleges established prior to 2nd\n           June, 2014".32.   Thus, before proceeding further, it is apposite to take\n\nnote of the stand taken by learned Advocate General which\n\nhas been recorded by us in paragraph 12 of this order.\n\nThus, in sum and substance, prior to amendment of the\n\n2017 Rules on 03.07.2023, 85% of the competent authority\n\nquota seats were reserved for local candidates in non-\n\nstatewide institutions, whereas 15% seats were treated as\n\nunreserved seats. Under the unamended Rules, 15% of the\n\nseats were unreserved in each college and it was directed\n\nthat reservation shall be maintained as far as possible for\n\nunreserved seats on total seats available.33.   After the amendment, with effect from 03.07.2023,\n\n85% of competent authority quota seats are reserved for\n\nlocal candidates in non-statewide institutions and 15% of\n\ncompetent authority quota seats are treated as unreserved\n\nin colleges established prior to 02.06.2014. Similarly, 15%26of    competent   authority   quota   seats   are     treated   as\n\nunreserved in each college established prior to 02.06.2014.34.    It is pertinent to note that on 02.06.2014, there were\n\n20 medical colleges in the State. The quota of 85% of\n\ncompetent authority quota seats and of 15% of competent\n\nauthority quota seats i.e., All India Quota for admission to\n\nMBBS/BDS courses is maintained, even after amendment\n\nof the 2017 Rules as on 02.06.2014. In the State of\n\nTelangana, 34 educational institutions have been set up\n\nafter 02.06.2014. After the amendment, 85% of competent\n\nauthority   quota   seats     had   been   reserved    for   local\n\ncandidates, whereas candidates of remaining States of the\n\ncountry including the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as of\n\nthe Union Territories can seek admission in MBBS/BDS\n\ncourse in respect of 15% quota of competent authority\n\nquota seats for admission to MBBS/BDS courses. Thus, it\n\nis evident that reservation to the extent of 100% has not\n\nbeen provided by amending the 2017 Rules.35.    In exercise of powers conferred by clauses (1) and (2)\n\nofArticle 371Dof the Constitution of India, President has27made an Order, namely Andhra Pradesh Educational\n\nInstitutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974. From\n\nperusal ofSection 97of the Reorganisation Act, it is\n\nevident that the Presidential Order applies to State of\n\nTelangana. Paragraph 2(1)(b), (e) and (f) which defines\n\n"local    area",    "statewide        educational     institution"     and\n\n"statewide university" read as under:(b)       "local area" in respect of any University or\n         other educational institution means the local area\n         specified in paragraph 3 of this Order for the purposes\n         of admission to such University or other educational\n         institution.(e)       "State-wide     educational     institution"means an educational institution or a department of\n         an educational institution specified in the Schedule to\n         this Order.(f)       "State-wide University" means the Andhra\n         Pradesh Agricultural University constituted under theAndhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963(Andhra Pradesh Act 24 of 1963), or the Jawaharlal\n         Nehru Technological University constituted under the\n         Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 1972\n         (Andhra Pradesh Act 16 of 1972) [or the Nizams\n         Institute of Medical Sciences constituted under the\n         Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences act, 1989\n         (A.P.Act No.13 of 1989)].2836.   Paragraph 3 of the Presidential Order divides the\n\nState in three local areas namely, Osmania University\n\nLocal Area (OU Area), Andhra University Local Area (AU\n\nArea) and Sri Venkateswara University Local Area (SVU\n\nArea).37.   Paragraphs 5 and 6 read as under:5. Reservation in non-State-wide Universities\n         and    educational    institutions:         (1)    Admission    to\n         eighty-five percent of the available seats in every\n         course of study provided by the Andhra University,\n         the Nagarjuna University, the Osmania University, the\n         Kakatiya University or Sri Venkateswara University or\n         by any educational institutions (other than a State-wide    University    or    a      State-wide        Educational\n         Institution) will be subject to the control of the State\n         Government shall be reserved in favour of the\n         candidates in relation to the local area in respect of\n         such University or other educational institution.(2) While determining under sub-paragraph (1)\n         the number of seats to be reserved in favour of local\n         candidates any fraction of a seat shall be counted as\n         one:   Provided    that    there    shall     be    atleast    one\n         unreserved seat.6. Reservation in State-wide Universities and\n         State-wide Educational Institutions:- (1) Admission\n         to eighty-five percent of the available seats in every29course of study provided by a State-wide University or\n        a State-wide educational institution shall be reserved\n        in favour of local candidates and allocated among the\n        local candidates in relation to the local areas specified\n        in sub-paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (2) and sub-\n        paragraph (3) of paragraph 3, in the ratio of 42:36:22\n        respectively.Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply\n        in relation to any course of study in which the total\n        number of available seats does not exceed three.(2)      While determining under sub-paragraph\n        (1) the number of seats to be reserved in favour of the\n        local candidates, any fraction of seat shall be counted\n        as one: Provided that there shall be atleast one\n        unreserved seat.(3)      While allocating under sub-paragraph (1)\n        the reserved seats among the local candidates in\n        relation to different local areas, fraction of a seat shall\n        be adjusted by counting the greatest fraction as one\n        and, if necessary, also the greater of the remaining\n        fractions as another; and, where the fraction to be so\n        counted cannot be selected by reason of the fractions\n        being equal, the selection shall be by lot:Provided that there shall be atleast one seat\n        allocated for the local candidates in respect of each\n        local area.38.    Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order provides that in\n\ncase    of   non-statewide        universities        and   educational\n\ninstitutions, out of the available seats, 85% of the seats30shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to\n\nlocal area. Paragraph 6 provides that 85% of the available\n\nseats in every course of study provided by a state-wide\n\nuniversity or a state-wide educational institution shall be\n\nreserved in favour of local candidates.39.   Thus, if paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Presidential Order\n\nand the amendment to the 2017 Rules is read together, it\n\nis evident that the amendment of the 2017 Rules is in\n\nconsonance of the paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Presidential\n\nOrder, as it provides reservation to the extent of 85% of the\n\ncompetent authority quota seats in favour of the local\n\ncandidates. Therefore, the contention that the impugned\n\namendment in the 2017 Rules is in contravention of the\n\nPresidential Order and is therefore void, is sans substance.Therefore, the issue (ii) is answered in the negative and it is\n\nheld that the impugned amendment is not in violation of\n\nthe Presidential Order and the same is not void.31Issue No.(iii)(iii)   Whether impugned amendment in the 2017\n\n              Rules is repugnant toArticle 371Dof the\n\n              Constitution of India andSection 95of the\n\n              Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014?40.Section 95of the Reorganisation Act is reproduced\n\nbelow for the facility of reference:95. Equal opportunities for quality higher\n       education to all students: In order to ensure equal\n       opportunities for quality higher education to all\n       students   in   the   successor   States,   the   existing\n       admission quotas in all government or private, aided\n       or unaided, institutions of higher, technical and\n       medical education in so far as it is provided underArticle 371Dof the Constitution, shall continue as\n       such for a period of ten years during which the\n       existing common admission process shall continue.41.   It is salutary principle of interpretation of statute,\n\nthat while interpreting it, effort should be made to give\n\neffect to each and every word used by the legislature. The\n\nCourt should always presume that the legislature has\n\ninserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative\n\nintention is that every part of the statute should have32effect. (SeeState of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Vijay Anand\n\nMaharaj11).The    aforesaid      principle   of   statutory\n\ninterpretation was approved by a Constitution Bench of\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Devi v. Radhadevi\n\nGupta 12.42.   InSection   95of   the   Reorganisation   Act,   the\n\nlegislature has used the expression 'existing admission\n\nquotas'. Section 95 is clear and unambiguous. On plain\n\nand literal interpretation of Section 95, it is evident that\n\nthe same mandates the successor states, namely State of\n\nAndhra Pradesh and State of Telangana to maintain\n\n'existing admission quotas' in all government or private,\n\naided or unaided, institutions of higher, technical and\n\nmedical education for a period of ten years. The aforesaid\n\nprovision refers to the quota in all the said institutions on\n\nthe date of commencement of the Act, i.e., 02.06.2014, as\n\nLegislature has expressly referred to "existing admission\n\nquotas". Section 95 does not apply to seats in educational\n\ninstitutions which come into existence after 02.06.2014. By\n\n11 AIR 1963 SC 946\n12 (2005) 2 SCC 21733amending the 2017 Rules the State Legislature has\n\nprovided reservation in respect of 85% competent authority\n\nquota seats in respect of educational institutions which\n\nhad been set up after 02.06.2014.43.   At this stage, we may take note of the relevant extract\n\nofArticle 371Dof the Constitution of India.371D. Special provisions with respect to the\n      State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana -(1) The President may by order made with respect\n      to the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of\n      Telangana, provide, having regard to the requirement of\n      each State, for equitable opportunities and facilities for\n      the people belonging to different parts of such State, in\n      the matter of public employment and in the matter of\n      education, and different provisions may be made for\n      various parts of the State.(2) An order made under clause (1) may, in\n      particular,--(a)   require      the    State    Government     to\n            organise any class or classes of posts in a civil\n            service of, or any class or classes of civil posts\n            under, the State into different local cadres for\n            different      parts   of    the    State    and   allot   in\n            accordance with such principles and procedure\n            as may be specified in the order the persons\n            holding such posts to the local cadres so\n            organised;34(b) specify any part or parts of the State\n            which shall be regarded as the local area--(i)     for direct recruitment to posts in\n                   any local cadre (whether organised in\n                   pursuance of an order under this article or\n                   constituted otherwise) under the State\n                   Government;(ii)    for direct recruitment to posts in\n                   any cadre under any local authority within\n                   the State; and(iii)   for the purposes of admission to any\n                   University within the State or to any other\n                   educational institution which is subject to\n                   the control of the State Government;(c) specify the extent to which, the manner\n            in which and the conditions subject to which,\n            preference or reservation shall be given or made--(i)     in the matter of direct recruitment\n                   to posts in any such cadre referred to in\n                   sub-clause (b) as may be specified in this\n                   behalf in the order;(ii)    in the matter of admission to any\n                   such    University     or   other   educationalinstitution referred to in sub-clause (b) as\n                   may be specified in this behalf in the order,\n      to or in favour of candidates who have resided or\n      studied for any period specified in the order in the local\n      area in respect of such cadre, University or other\n      educational institution, as the case may be.44.   Thus,Article 371Dprovides for special provisions in\n\nrespect of State of Telangana and the State of Andhra35Pradesh. In exercise of clauses (1) and (2) ofArticle 371Dof\n\nthe Constitution of India, the President has framed\n\nPresidential Order. While dealing with issue No.(ii), it has\n\nalready been held that the same is in consonance with the\n\nPresidential Order. The amendment incorporated in the\n\n2017 Rules is not in contravention withArticle 371Dof the\n\nConstitution of India as the same also makes a provision\n\nfor local candidates in respect of 85% of the competent\n\nauthority quota seats.45.   For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the inevitable\n\nconclusion is that the amendment to 2017 Rules is neither\n\nviolative ofSection 95of the Reorganisation Act, 2014 norArticle 371Dof the Constitution of India. Accordingly issue\n\nNo.(iii) is answered.Issue No.(iv)(iv)   Whether    the   petitioners   had   a   legitimate\n\n             expectation underSection 95of the Andhra\n\n             Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 which had36been violated by amendment of the 2017 Rules,\n\n               on 03.07.2023?46.   Legitimate or reasonable expectation may arise from\n\nan express promise given on behalf of a public authority. It\n\nmay also arise from existence of a regular practice which a\n\nclaimant can reasonably expect to continue (SeeR v.\n\nSecretary       of     Transport     Exporte     Greater     London\n\nCouncil13).InBannari     Amman       Sugars      Ltd.   v.\n\nCommercial Tax Officer14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court\n\nwhile dealing with the doctrine of legitimate expectation in\n\nparagraph 20 held as under:20.InShrijee    Sales       Corpn. v. Union      of\n      India[(1997) 3 SCC 398] it was observed that once\n      public interest is accepted as the superior equity which\n      can override individual equity the principle would be\n      applicable even in cases where a period has been\n      indicated for operation of the promise. If there is a\n      supervening public equity, the Government would be\n      allowed to change its stand and has the power to\n      withdraw from representation made by it which induced\n      persons to take certain steps which may have gone\n      adverse to the interest of such persons on account of\n      such     withdrawal.   Moreover,    the   Government    is\n\n\n13 (1985) 3 All.ER 300\n14 (2005) 1 SCC 62537competent to rescind from the promise even if there is\n      no manifest public interest involved, provided no one is\n      put in any adverse situation which cannot be rectified.Similar view was expressed in Pawan Alloys and\n      Casting (P) Ltd. v. U.P. SEB [(1997) 7 SCC 251 : AIR\n      1997      SC   3910]       and   in STO v. Shree      Durga    Oil\n      Mills [(1998) 1 SCC 572] and it was further held that\n      the Government could change its industrial policy if the\n      situation      so    warranted      and   merely   because     the\n      resolution was announced for a particular period, it did\n      not mean that the Government could not amend and\n      change the policy under any circumstances. If the party\n      claiming application of the doctrine acted on the basis of\n      a     notification    it   should      have   known   that    such\n      notification was liable to be amended or rescinded at\n      any point of time, if the Government felt that it was\n      necessary to do so in public interest.47.   A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court\n\ninSivanandan C.T v. HighCourt of Kerala 15 dealt with\n\nthe doctrine of legitimate expectation. In paragraphs 18,\n\n29, 41 and 60 of decision, it is held as under:18.      The basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation\n      in public law is founded on the principles of fairness\n      and non-arbitrariness in government dealings with\n      individuals. It recognizes that a public authority's\n      promise or past conduct will give rise to a legitimate\n      expectation. The doctrine is premised on the notion that\n\n\n15 2023 SCC Online SC 99438public authorities, while performing their public duties,\nought to honor their promises or past practices. The\nlegitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted\nin law, custom, or established procedure. (Salemi v.Mackellar ([1977] HCA 26).29.    A claim based on the doctrine of procedural\nlegitimate expectation arises where a claimant expects\nthe public authority to follow a particular procedure\nbefore taking a decision. This is in contradistinction to\nthe doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation where\na claimant expects conferral of a substantive benefit\nbased on the existing promise or practice of the public\nauthority.    The     doctrine    of     substantive    legitimate\nexpectation has now been accepted as an integral part of\nboth the common law as well as Indian jurisprudence.41.    The doctrine of legitimate expectation does not\nimpede or hinder the power of the public authorities to\nlay down a policy or withdraw it. The public authority\nhas the discretion to exercise the full range of choices\navailable    within    its    executive    power.    The   public\nauthority often has to take into consideration diverse\nfactors, concerns, and interests before arriving at a\nparticular policy decision. The courts are generally\ncautious in interfering with a bona fide decision of\npublic authorities which denies a legitimate expectation\nprovided such a decision is taken in the larger public\ninterest. Thus, public interest serves as a limitation on\nthe application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.\nCourts have to determine whether the public interest is\ncompelling and sufficient to outweigh the legitimate\nexpectation    of     the    claimant.    While     performing   a39balancing exercise, courts have to often grapple with the\nissues of burden and standard of proof required to\ndislodge the claim of legitimate expectation.60. The following are our conclusions in view of the\nabove discussions:(i)     The principles of good administration require that\n        the   decisions     of     public   authorities    must\n        withstand the test of consistency, transparency,\n        and predictability to avoid being termed as\n        arbitrary and violative ofArticle 14;(ii)    An individual who claims a benefit or entitlement\n        based on the doctrine of substantive legitimate\n        expectation has to establish the following : (i) the\n        legitimacy of the expectation; and that (ii) the\n        denial of the legitimate expectation led to a\n        violation ofArticle 14;(iii)   A public authority must objectively demonstrate\n        by placing relevant material before the court that\n        its decision was in the public interest to frustrate\n        a claim of legitimate expectation;(iv)    The decision of the High Court of Kerala to apply\n        a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination is\n        contrary to Rule 2(c)(iii) of the 1961 Rules.(v)     The High Court's decision to apply the minimum\n        cut-off marks for the viva voce frustrates the\n        substantive      legitimate    expectation    of    the\n        petitioners. The decision is arbitrary and violative\n        ofArticle 14.40(vi)   In terms of relief, we hold that it would be\n             contrary to the public interest to direct the\n             induction of the petitioners into the Higher\n             Judicial Service after the lapse of more than six\n             years. Candidates who have been selected nearly\n             six years ago cannot be unseated. They were all\n             qualified and have been serving the district\n             judiciary of the state. Unseating them at this\n             stage would be contrary to public interest. To\n             induct the petitioners would be to bring in new\n             candidates in preference to those who are holding\n             judicial office for a length of time. To deprive the\n             state and its citizens of the benefit of these\n             experienced judicial officers at a senior position\n             would not be in public interest.48.Section 95of the Reorganisation Act mandates that\n\nthe successor states, namely State of Andhra Pradesh and\n\nState of Telangana to maintain 'existing admission quotas'\n\nin all government or private, aided or unaided, institutions\n\nof higher, technical and medical education for a period of\n\nten years. The aforesaid provision refers to the quota in all\n\nthe said institutions on the date of commencement of the\n\nAct, i.e., 02.06.2014, as legislature has expressly referred\n\nto "existing admission quotas". Section 95 does not apply\n\nto seats in educational institutions which come into41existence after 02.06.2014. By amending the 2017 Rules\n\nthe State Legislature has provided reservation in respect of\n\n85% competent authority quota seats in respect of seats in\n\neducational institutions which had been set up after\n\n02.06.2014. Thus, the petitioners who are admittedly the\n\nlocal candidates of the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot\n\nhave any legitimate expectation underSection 95of the\n\nReorganisation Act to claim a right in respect of seats\n\nwhich came into existence in 34 educational institutions\n\nset up in the State of Telangana after the formation of the\n\nState.49.InMadras City Wine Merchants' Association v.\n\nState of Tamil Nadu16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in\n\nparagraph 52 held that doctrine of legitimate expectation\n\napplies only in the field of administrative law and it is not\n\npermissible      to   invoke    the    doctrine   as   against    the\n\nlegislation. Relevant extract of paragraph 52 reads as\n\nunder:52.   It was by a rule (subordinate legislation) in\n         exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 17-C,17-16 (1994)5SCC 50942D, 21 and 54 of theTamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937licences under Bar Rules came to be granted. Those\n       Rules have been repealed by exercise of the same\n       powers underSections 17-C,17-D,21and54of the\n       Prohibition Act. Therefore, this is a case of legislation.The doctrine of legitimate expectation arises only in\n       the field of administrative decisions. If the plea of\n       legitimate expectation relates to procedural fairness\n       there is no possibility whatever of invoking the\n       doctrine as against the legislation...50.   Therefore, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law\n\nby Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the doctrine of\n\nlegitimate     expectation      cannot      be    invoked       against\n\nlegislation. Therefore, the issue No.(iv) is answered by\n\nstating that the petitioners did not have any legitimate\n\nexpectation underSection 95of the Reorganisation Act and\n\ntherefore, the question of its violation by amendment of the\n\n2017 Rules does not arise.Issue No.(v)(v)    Whether rules of the game have been changed\n\n             midway by way of amending the 2017 Rules on\n\n             03.07.2023?4351.   The   National   Testing     Agency   (NTA)   issued   a\n\nnotification on 06.03.2023, in pursuance of which the\n\npetitioners as well as other candidates submitted their\n\napplications between 6th March, 2023 and 6th April, 2023\n\nfor appearing NEET UG examinations. The NEET UG\n\nexamination was held on 07.05.2023. The results of the\n\nsaid examination were declared on 13.06.2023. On the\n\nbasis of the aforesaid examination, the admissions were to\n\nbe made to medical colleges situated in the State of\n\nTelangana as per the 2017 Rules. The aforesaid Rules were\n\namended on 03.07.2023. Thereafter, the notification was\n\nissued on 06.07.2023 by the University inviting online\n\napplication for admission to MBBS/BDS courses in the\n\nState of Telangana. Therefore, the amendment by way of\n\nRules had been made prior to commencement of the\n\nprocess of admission to MBBS/BDS courses in the State of\n\nTelangana. Therefore, the contention that the rules of the\n\ngame had been changed midway is misconceived in the\n\nfacts of the case. Accordingly, the issue No.(v) is answered.44Issue No.(vi)(vi)   Whether the reservation to the extent of 100%\n\n             in favour of local candidates of the State of\n\n             Telangana can be provided in respect of 85% of\n\n             the   competent   authority   quota    seats   in\n\n             educational   institutions    set     up   after\n\n             02.06.2014 i.e., formation of State, by way of\n\n             amendment in the 2017 Rules, and if yes,\n\n             whether the same is permissible?52.InPradeep Jain(supra), a three-Judge Bench of\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question whether\n\nadmission to a medical college or any other institution of\n\nhigher learning situated in the State can be confined to\n\nthose who have their domicile within the State or who are\n\nresident within the State for a specified number of years or\n\ncan any reservation in admissions be made for them so as\n\nto give them precedence over those who do not possess\n\ndomicile or residential qualification within the State\n\nirrespective of merit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in45paragraph 20, which is extracted below for the facility of\n\nreference, held as under:20. The       only   question       which    remains   to   be\n      considered is as to what should be the extent of\n      reservation based on residence requirement and\n      institutional preference. There can be no doubt that\n      such reservation cannot completely exclude admission\n      of students from other universities and States on the\n      basis of merit judged in open competition. Krishna\n      Iyer,     J.,    rightly     remarked      in Jagdish      Saran\n      case [(1980) 2 SCC 768 : AIR 1980 SC 820 : (1980) 2\n      SCR 831] at pages 845 and 846 of the Report: (SCC p.778, para 22)\n                 "... reservation must be kept in check by\n              the demands of competence. You cannot\n              extend the shelter of reservation where\n              minimum         qualifications     are     absent.Similarly, all the best talent cannot be\n              completely         excluded       by     wholesale\n              reservation. So, a certain percentage, which\n              may be available, must be kept open for\n              meritorious      performance       regardless     of\n              university, State and the like. Complete\n              exclusion of the rest of the country for the\n              sake of a province, wholesale banishment of\n              proven    ability    to   open    up,    hopefully,\n              some dalit talent,        total    sacrifice      of\n              excellence at the altar of equalisation --\n              when the Constitution mandates for every\n              one equality before and equal protection of\n              the law -- may be fatal folly, self-defeating46educational technology and antinational if\n             made a routine rule of State policy. A fair\n             preference, a reasonable reservation, a just\n             adjustment of the prior needs and real\n             potential of the weak with the partial\n             recognition of the presence of competitive\n             merit -- such is the dynamics of social\n             justice which animates the three egalitarian\n             articles of the Constitution."We agree wholly with these observations made by the\n      learned     Judge    and   we     unreservedly   condemn\n      wholesale reservation made by some of the State\n      Governments on the basis of "domicile" or residence\n      requirement within the State or on the basis of\n      institutional preference for students who have passed\n      the qualifying examination held by the university or\n      the State excluding all students not satisfying this\n      requirement, regardless of merit. We declare such\n      wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional and void\n      as being in violation ofArticle 14of the Constitution.53.   The aforesaid decision inPradeep Jain(supra) was\n\nconsidered     by   another      three-Judge      Bench     inReita\n\nNirankari(supra).The order passed inReita Nirankari(supra) supra reads as under:1. Some of the students seeking admission to the\n      MBBS course in this academic year have made an\n      application to this Court that the Judgment delivered\n      on June 22, 1984 [ Pradeep Jain v Union of India,47(1984) 3 SCC 654] in the medical admission cases\nmay be given effect to only from the next academic\nyear, because admissions have already been made in\nthe   medical    colleges   attached   to   some    of   the\nUniversities in the country prior to the delivery of the\nJudgment on June 22, 1984 and moreover, some time\nwould be required for the purpose of achieving\nuniformity in the procedure relating to admissions in\nthe various Universities. We accordingly issued notice\non the application to the learned advocates who had\nappeared on behalf of the various parties at the\nhearing of the main writ petitions as also to the\nAttorney General and after hearing them, we have\ncome to the conclusion and this is accepted by all\nparties that in view of the fact that all formalities for\nadmission,      including   the   holding    of    entrance\nexamination, have been completed in some of the\nStates prior to the Judgment dated June 22, 1984\nand also since some time would be required for\nmaking the necessary preparations for implementing\nthe judgment, it is not practicable to give effect to the\njudgment from the present academic year and in fact\ncompelling some States to give effect to the Judgment\nfrom the present academic year when others have not,\nwould result in producing inequality and if all the\nStates were to be required to implement the judgment\nimmediately, admissions already made would have to\nbe cancelled and fresh entrance examinations would\nhave to be held and this would require at least 2 or\n2½ months delaying the commencement of the\nacademic term apart from causing immense hardship\nto the students. We therefore direct that the judgment48shall be implemented with effect from the next\n      academic   year   1985-86.    Whatever   admissions,\n      provisional or otherwise, have been made for the\n      academic year 1984-85, shall not be disturbed on the\n      basis of the judgment. We may make it clear that the\n      judgment will not apply to the States of Andhra\n      Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir because at the\n      time of hearing of the main writ petitions, it was\n      pointed out to us by the learned advocates appearing\n      on behalf of those States that there were special\n      constitutional provisions in regard to them which\n      would need independent consideration by this Court.2. This order will form part of the main judgment\n      delivered on June 22, 1984.54.   Hon'ble Supreme Court inSandeep(supra) in a\n\npetition filed by the petitioners underArticle 32of the\n\nConstitution of India dealt with the question whether the\n\nprimary eligibility criteria for appearing in super speciality\n\nentrance examination in the States like Andhra Pradesh,\n\nTelangana and Tamil Nadu can be confined only to the\n\ncandidates having their domicile in other States.In\n\nparagraphs 19 and 20 of the aforesaid judgment, the\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court referred to decision inReita\n\nNirankari(supra) and held as under:19. Afterthe said judgmentwas delivered, the\n      said three-Judge Bench passed a clarificatory order49inReita Nirankari [Reita Nirankari v. Union of India,\n(1984) 3 SCC 706] wherein the Court considered three\naspects, one of which is relevant for the present case.We reproduce the same: (SCC pp. 707-708, para 1)\n         "1. ... We may make it clear that the\n      judgment will not apply to the States of\n      Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir\n      because at the time of hearing of the main\n      writ petitions, it was pointed out to us by\n      the learned advocates appearing on behalf\n      of those States that there were special\n      constitutional provisions in regard to them\n      which       would       need        independent\n      consideration by this Court."The   aforesaid     clarificatory   order   has   its   own\nsignificance,     for   it   undeniably     excludes    the\napplicability of the domicile test stated inPradeep\nJain [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC\n654] in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh.20. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer\ntoC. Surekha [C. Surekha v. Union of India, (1988) 4\nSCC 526]. The said case arose from Osmania\nUniversity in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner therein\nhad passed from the said University and he intended\nto take the All India Entrance Examination for\nadmission to PG medical course in 1988. He had\nchallenged the constitutional validity ofArticles 371-\nD(2)(b)(iii)and (c)(ii) of the Constitution as well as the\nPresidential Order as a consequence of which the\nstudents of Andhra Pradesh have been excluded for\ncompeting in the aforesaid examination.The two-50Judge Bench referred to the decisions inPradeep\nJain [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC\n654] and Reita Nirankari [Reita Nirankari v. Union of\nIndia, (1984) 3 SCC 706] and noted the stand of the\nUnion of India and Andhra Pradesh in their respective\ncounter-affidavits that had asserted that institutions\nin the State of Andhra Pradesh were kept out from the\npurview of the scheme in view of the decision rendered\ninPradeep Jain [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984)\n3 SCC 654] .The Court also took note of the fact that\nthe issue was kept open inReita Nirankari [Reita\nNirankari v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 706] , and\nreferred       to        the        pronouncements                  in P.\nSambamurthy v. State of A.P. [P. Sambamurthy v. State\nof A.P., (1987) 1 SCC 362 : (1987) 2 ATC 502]\n, Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [Minerva Mills\nLtd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625] , S.P.\nSampath      Kumar v. Union           of     India [S.P.    Sampath\nKumar v. Union of India, (1985) 4 SCC 458 : 1985 SCC\n(L&S) 986] and reiterated the principle thatArticle\n371-D(3)was valid because clause (10) ofArticle 371-\nDprovides        as   follows:      (C.     Surekhacase [C.\nSurekha v. Union of India, (1988) 4 SCC 526] , SCC p.\n531, para 4)\n           "4. ...'371-D. (3) The provisions of this\n     Article and of any order made by the\n     President       thereunder        shall       have    effect\n     notwithstanding           anything       in    any    other\n     provision of this Constitution or in any\n     other law for the time being in force.'"5155.   Thereafter, in paragraphs 36 and 37, it was held as\n\nunder:36. We have referred to the aforesaid judgments in\n         extenso as the learned counsel appearing for the\n         petitioners have laid immense emphasis that there\n         cannot be reservation of any kind in respect of\n         postgraduate or super speciality courses regard being\n         had to the lawlaid down bymany a judgment of this\n         Court. It is urged that the State of Andhra Pradesh\n         and Telangana cannot apply the domicile test only to\n         admit its own students and that too also in respect of\n         15% quota meant for non-local candidates. We have\n         already analysed the factual score and the legal\n         position. The undivided State of Andhra Pradesh\n         enjoys a special privilege granted to it underArticle\n         371-Dof the Constitution and the Presidential Order.The judgments of the larger Bench do not refer to the\n         said Article nor do they refer to the Presidential Order,\n         for the said issue did not arise in the said cases.A   scheme     has      beenlaid   down   inPradeep\n         Jain [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC\n         654] and the concept of percentage had undergone\n         certain      changes.InReita      Nirankari [Reita\n         Nirankari v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 706] , the\n         same three-Judge Bench clarified the position which\n         we have already reproduced hereinbefore.However,\n         inC. Surekha [C. Surekha v. Union of India, (1988) 4\n         SCC 526] , the Court had expressed its view about the\n         amendment of the Presidential Order regard being had\n         to the passage of time and the advancement in the\n         State of Andhra Pradesh. It has been vehemently52urged by Mr Marlapalle that despite 27 years having\nbeen elapsed, the situation remains the same.We\ntake note of the said submission and we are also\ninclined to echo the observation that was made\ninFazal    Ghafoor [Fazal   Ghafoor v. Union of    India,\n1988 Supp SCC 794 : 1 SCEC 356] wherein it has\nbeen stated thus: (SCC p. 795, para 2)\n           "2.... InPradeep Jaincase [Pradeep\n     Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654]\n     this     Court   has     observed   that      in\n     superspecialities there should really be no\n     reservation. This is so in the general\n     interest of the country and for improving\n     the standard of higher education and\n     thereby improving the quality of available\n     medical services to the people of India. We\n     hope and trust that the Government of\n     India and the State Governments shall\n     seriously consider this aspect of the matter\n     without delay and appropriate guidelines\n     shall be evolved by the Indian Medical\n     Council so as to keep the superspecialities\n     in medical education unreserved, open and\n     free."37. The fond hope has remained in the sphere of\nhope though there has been a progressive change. The\nsaid privilege remains unchanged, as if to compete\nwith eternity. Therefore, we echo the same feeling and\nreiterate the aspirations of others so that authorities\ncan objectively assess and approach the situation so53that the national interest can become paramount. We\n      do not intend to add anything in this regard.56.   Thus, on perusal of the order passed by Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court inReita Nirankari(supra) and relevant\n\nparagraphs of paragraphs 19, 20, 36 and 37 of the decision\n\nof Hon'ble Supreme Court inSandeep(supra), it is evident\n\nthat the ratiolaid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court inPradeep Jain(supra) does not apply to the State of\n\nTelangana.57.   Now we may advert to the decision of the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court inChebrolu Leela Prasad Rao(supra). The\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the validity of G.O.Ms.\n\nNo.3, dated 10.01.2000 issued by erstwhile            State of\n\nAndhra Pradesh which prescribed 100% reservation to the\n\nScheduled Tribe candidates, out of whom 33.1/3% shall be\n\nwomen    for the post of teachers in the school in the\n\nscheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The\n\nquestions which were answered by Hon'ble Supreme Court\n\nwere quoted in paragraph 2 of the judgment, which is\n\nreproduced below:542. Several questions have been referred for\n      consideration in the order dated 11-1-2016 [Chebrolu\n      Leela Prasad Rao v. State of A.P., (2021) 11 SCC 526] .We have renumbered Questions 1(a), (b), (c) and (d)\n      based on interconnection. The questions are as\n      follows : (Chebrolu Leela Prasad Raocase [Chebrolu\n      Leela Prasad Rao v. State of A.P., (2021) 11 SCC 526] ,\n      SCC p. 527, para 1)\n             (1) What is the scope of Para 5(1), Schedule V to\n      the Constitution of India?(a) Does the provision empower the Governor to\n      make a new law?(b)   Does   the   power     extend   to   subordinate\n      legislation?(c) Can the exercise of the power conferred therein\n      override fundamental rights guaranteed under Part\n      III?(d) Does the exercise of such power override any\n      parallel exercise of power by the President under\n      Article 371-D?(2) Whether 100% reservation is permissible under\n      the Constitution?(3) Whether the notification merely contemplates a\n      classification underArticle 16(1)and not reservation\n      underArticle 16(4)?(4) Whether the conditions of eligibility (i.e. origin\n      and cut-off date) to avail the benefit of reservation in\n      the notification are reasonable?58.   Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the\n\npetitioners on answer given by Hon'ble Supreme Court to55question No.2 in paragraphs 145 and 146, which read as\n\nunder:145. A reservation that is permissible by protective\n         mode,    by    making      it    100%   would     become\n         discriminatory and impermissible. The opportunity of\n         public employment cannot be denied unjustly to the\n         incumbents, and it is not the prerogative of few. The\n         citizens have equal rights, and the total exclusion of\n         others by creating an opportunity for one class is not\n         contemplated    by   the    Founding    Fathers   of   the\n         Constitution of India. Equality of opportunity and\n         pursuit of choice underArticle 51-Acannot be\n         deprived of unjustly and arbitrarily. As per the\n         Presidential Order, the citizens of the locality and\n         outsiders were entitled to 15% of employment in the\n         district cadre in terms of clause (10) ofArticle\n         370(1)(d)of the Constitution. Thus, the G.O. does not\n         classify but deals with reservations. It was contrary to\n         the report sent to the President by the Governor,\n         which indicated even the posts which were reserved\n         for Scheduled Tribes Teachers, they were not available\n         as such Tribes Advisory Council decided to fill them\n         from other non-local tribals.146. We find that GOMs No. 3 of 2000 is wholly\n         impermissible and cannot be said to be legally\n         permissible and constitutionally valid. It can be said\n         that action is not only irrational, but it violates the\n         rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution\n         and is not sustainable.5659.   Now we may advert to the decision of the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court inSatyajit Kumar(supra). In the aforesaid\n\ndecision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the validity\n\nof advertisement dated 28.12.2016 issued by Department\n\nof Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Raj Basha of\n\nGovernment       of     Jharkhand,        inviting      applications    for\n\nappointment to the post of trained graduate teachers in\n\ngovernment secondary schools to the extent of 100%\n\nreservation for the local candidates/ residents of thirteen\n\nscheduled areas in the State of Jharkhand. The Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court in paragraphs 99 and 100 held as under:99. Even underArticle 16(3)of the Constitution of\n      India, it is the Parliament alone, which is authorized\n      to make any law prescribing, in regard to a class or\n      classes of employment or appointment to an office\n      under the Government of, or any local or other\n      authority within, a State of Union Territory, any\n      requirement as to residence within the State or Union\n      territory prior to such employment or appointment. As\n      perArticle   35of   the    Constitution    of    India,\n      notwithstanding        anything      contained      in     the\n      Constitution, the Parliament shall have and the\n      Legislature of a State shall not have the power to\n      make laws with respect to any of the matters which,\n      under clause (3) ofArticle 16may be provided for law\n      made       by     Parliament.       Therefore,      impugned57Notification/Order making 100% reservation for the\n       local       resident      of     the         concerned     Scheduled\n       Area/Districts (reservation on the basis of resident) is\n       ultra vires toArticle 35r/wArticle 16(3)of the\n       Constitution of India.100. Applying the lawlaid down bythis Court in\n       the case ofChebrolu Leela Prasad Rao(supra) and in\n       view of the above discussion and for the reasons\n       stated above, the High Court has not committed any\n       error in concluding and holding that the Notification\n       No. 5938 and Order No. 5939 dated 14.7.2016 issued\n       by the State Government providing 100% reservation\n       for     the   local     residents       of    concerned    Scheduled\n       Districts/Areas as being unconstitutional and ultra\n       viresArticles     14,    13(2),     15and16(2)of   the\n       Constitution of India. It is rightly observed and held\n       that said Notification and Order would also violateArticles 16(3)and35(a-i)of the Constitution of India.The High Court has also rightly observed and held\n       that aforesaid Notification and Order is ultra vires to\n       paragraph        5(1)     of    the      Fifth    Schedule     of   the\n       Constitution of India. We are in complete agreement\n       with the view taken by the High Court.60.   The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court inPradeep\n\nJain(supra) does not apply to the State of Telangana, as\n\nclarified    by      Hon'ble          Supreme           Court    itself    inReita\n\nNirankari(supra) andSandeep(supra).The decisions of\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court inChebrolu Leela Prasad Rao58(supra) andSatyajit Kumar(supra) are authorities for the\n\nproposition that 100% reservation in matter of employment\n\nis violative of the constitutional guarantee contained inArticle 16of the Constitution of India. However, we may\n\nreiterate that instant case is not a case of 100% reservation\n\nas only 85% of competent authority quota seats in respect\n\nof educational institutions which have been set up after\n\nformation of the State, i.e., 02.06.2014 had been reserved\n\nfor the candidates of State of Telangana.Therefore, the\n\ndecisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court inChebrolu Leela\n\nPrasad Rao(supra) andSatyajit Kumar(supra) have no\n\napplication to the facts of these cases.61.   Therefore, the issue No.(vi) is answered by stating\n\nthat reservation to the extent of 100% in favour of local\n\ncandidates in the Sate of Telangana by way of amendment\n\nto the 2017 Rules had not been provided.62.   However, in view of submission made by learned\n\nAdvocate General and learned standing counsel for the\n\nUniversity that 85% of competent authority quota seats\n\nalone had been reserved for local candidates for the State59of Telangana in respect of institutions set up after\n\nformation of the State i.e., 02.06.2014 and it is permissible\n\nfor the students of other States including the State of\n\nAndhra Pradesh to participate in 15% of competent\n\nauthority quota seats, it is directed that the aforesaid\n\nprovision, if not already made, shall be made in the seat\n\nmatrix notified by the University.63.   In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any\n\nmerit in these writ petitions. In the result, the same fail\n\nand are accordingly dismissed.______________________________________\n                                    ALOK ARADHE, CJ\n\n\n\n\n                           ______________________________________\n                                 N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J\n\n\n11.09.2023\nPln\n\nNote: LR copy be marked.(By order)\n      pln