Supreme Court upholds Telangana’s rules for domicile quota
The Supreme Court upheld Telangana's domicile quota for medical admissions, allowing an exception for children of parents in govt service outside the state
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Telangana government’s domicile quota rule identifying ‘local’ students as those who studied for four continuous years or have stayed in the state during this period to be eligible for medical and dental admissions.
To ensure children of government services, defence and paramilitary officers are not excluded by virtue of their parents’ compulsion to serve outside the state, the court approved a proposed amendment to the domicile rule by which the state agreed to create an exception for such students.
The order of the court came on an appeal filed by Telangana government challenging a September 5, 2024 judgment of the Telangana high court setting aside the domicile quota rule introduced by the state in July 2024.
Allowing the state’s appeals, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justice K Vinod Chandran held that the high court was at fault as it found several decisions of the court upholding the state’s right to provide for domicile quota in medical/dental admissions to ensure the local students get the benefit of state resources.
It said, “In the wake of the binding precedents, holding the field for three score and ten years; a lifetime, we are unable to accede to the claim of the students who did not fall under the definition (of local student) that the rule is exclusionary, arbitrary and constitutionally invalid.”
However, the bench referred to the proviso the state intended to add to the 2024 rule. “The said proviso should allay and mitigate the grievances of those who claim that they were taken out of the state by compulsion of the movement of their parents outside the state by reason of employment in Government/All-India Services/ Corporations or Public Sector Undertakings constituted as an instrumentality of the state of Telangana, as also defence and paramilitary forces who trace their nativity to the state. “With only the said reservation, we uphold the Rules of 2017 as it stood amended in 2024.”
The state represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankarannarayanan along with advocate Sravan Kumar Karanam submitted that the Reorganisation Act of Andhra Pradesh permitted continuance of the benefit under Article 371D in the newly formed states for a period of ten years. Article 371D provides for special provisions with respect to Andhra Pradesh
On expiry of this period, there was a requirement for a new legislation. This paved the way for the Telangana government to amend the 2017 Rules and amend it by incorporating a fresh Rule 3 by way of a government order dated July 19, 2024.
This amendment provided for the ‘Competent Authority Quota’ for reservation to an extent of 85% to those candidates who have either “studied in the educational institutions in the local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years” just preceding the year for getting admission. Alternatively, the quota could be availed in a situation where the student has resided in the local area but without studying in any educational institutions, during the whole or any part of the four consecutive years.
The top court said that the state government was competent to introduce the Rules of 2017 as well as the amended 2024 Rules since ‘education’ falls under Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) in the Constitution.
“We have already held that the pre-amended rule defining a local candidate was perfectly in order, which reasoning applies squarely to the amended rule also. There was no warrant for a reading down when the definition is clear, in consonance with the Presidential Order and similar rules having been upheld by this court as coming out from the binding precedents,” the bench held, while disagreeing with the high court.
As concerns were raised during arguments that this rule will adversely impact children of persons serving in Government/All-India Services/ Corporations or Public Sector Undertakings, as also defence and paramilitary forces who trace their nativity to the state, but are employed outside the state, the state agreed to further amend Rule 3 to ensure the reservation is not excluded to such students.
The proposed amendment further required a “Certificate of employment” from the competent authority testifying the candidate’s father/mother’s service outside the state for the period corresponding to the years of study undergone by the candidate outside Telangana.
The bench further noted that last year, when this issue was pending in court, a concession was made by the state before the top court by which the rule was not strictly enforced against the candidates who failed to fulfil this criteria. The court held that those admissions shall not be disturbed.
