Telangana HC directs Kaloji Narayana Rao University to treat NEET candidate as local

The Telangana High Court directed Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences to treat a NEET-UG 2026 candidate as a local candidate after the State agreed that children of Central government employees should also be covered by the admission rule.

Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court directed Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences to treat a NEET-UG 2026 candidate as a “local candidate” for admission into MBBS/BDS courses for the 2026-27 academic year, after the State conceded that the exclusion of children of Central government employees from a key admission rule required correction. The petitioner, Kodimela Samhitha, had challenged the proviso to Rule 3(a)(iii) of the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.150 dated September 8, 2025. The rule permits candidates who studied outside Telangana during the qualifying period to still be treated as local candidates, but only if they fall under four specified categories — children of State government employees, Telangana-cadre All India Services officers, defence and paramilitary personnel, and employees of State-owned corporations liable to transfer. The petitioner’s father, an Employees’ State Insurance Corporation employee, was transferred from Hyderabad to Tirupati in December 2016 and posted back in May 2024, during which period the petitioner completed her schooling and intermediate education in Andhra Pradesh. Since ESIC is a Central government corporation, she did not fall within any of the four exempted categories, despite holding a Nativity Certificate confirming her father’s Telangana origin. Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the classification lacked any rational nexus with the object of the rule, since children of Central government employees faced identical hardship on account of parental transfers, and cited an earlier interim order of the Court, where a similar exclusion was found prima facie arbitrary. Advocate General A. Sudershan Reddy, appearing for the State, conceded that the rationale behind the exception ought to extend to children of Central government employees as well, and assured the Court that a clarificatory amendment was under active consideration. Recording the concession, the Bench held that adjudicating the constitutional validity of the provision was unnecessary at this stage. It directed that the proviso be read, pending formal amendment, to include children of Central government, Central government corporation, and Central Public Sector Undertaking employees on the same terms as State government employees’ children. The University was directed to admit the petitioner into the ongoing counselling process as a local candidate, and the State was directed to expeditiously issue the formal amendment to G.O.Ms.No.150. The Court clarified that the relief would operate pro tanto until the amendment is notified.

---

Telangana HC hears pleas against Speaker’s order on BRS MLAs’ disqualification

Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court continued hearing on Tuesday the petitions filed by BRS and BJP MLAs seeking to quash the Speaker’s (Tenth Schedule Tribunal) verdict and disqualify 10 BRS MLAs who had allegedly switched to Congress Party. Appearing on behalf of one of the defected MLA Danam Nagender, the counsel submitted that the disqualification petitions filed by the BRS and BJP MLAs against Nagender were based solely on newspaper reports and social media posts, and that the Speaker had rightly declined to act on such unverified material. He contended that the Speaker’s order was legally sound and did not warrant interference by the Court. The counsel further argued that the allegation that Nagender had contested the Lok Sabha elections on a Congress ticket while continuing as a BRS MLA did not form part of the original disqualification petition filed before the Speaker. He pointed out that this allegation had been introduced only later, through an additional affidavit filed during the course of the proceedings, and submitted that the Speaker was under no obligation to take cognisance of allegations raised in this manner. Raising a further objection on maintainability, the counsel questioned whether the BRS MLAs had filed the disqualification petitions in their individual capacity, and whether they had obtained the BRS party’s authorisation to do so. He stated that the BRS party itself had never lodged a complaint with the Speaker regarding Nagender’s alleged defection, nor had it ever called upon him to explain his conduct. After hearing submissions, the Bench adjourned the matter to Thursday for further hearing.