The Andhra Pradesh High Court has denied Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservation benefits under the Andhra Pradesh State quota for MBBS admissions to a NEET-UG aspirant holding a Telangana-issued ST certificate, observing that recognition of the same community as a Scheduled Tribe in both States does not entitle her to reservation benefits in Andhra Pradesh.

Article 342 of the Constitution empowers the President to specify Scheduled Tribes for each State or Union Territory, with Parliament empowered to amend the notified lists. Recognition in one State does not automatically confer reservation benefits in another.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by a NEET-UG aspirant, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh State admission authorities to consider her under the Open Category for MBBS admissions under the State quota, despite recognising her as a local candidate.

The Court observed:

“Grievance raised in present petition is that while being considered in category of local candidate, she should be afforded further benefit of belonging to ST category as well at the time of considering her in the local candidate category.

In the present case, petitioner is admittedly a resident of Telangana; her community certificate has been issued by competent authority in the State of Telangana; she is treated as a local candidate in State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of her pursuing her studying in Andhra Pradesh for five consecutive years from 2021-22 to 2025-26. Admittedly, she is afforded the benefit of being local candidate in Andhra Pradesh and ST category in the All India Quota. In the given factual matrix, the applicable provisions and position of law as discussed in foregoing paras, action of respondent Nos.2 & 3 is absolutely justified and is unimpeachable and petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of reservation under ST category in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Argument that the community to which the petitioner belongs is also recognized to be a Scheduled Tribe in Andhra Pradesh entitles her to such reservation and the same cannot be denied only on the ground of certificate in this regard by the authority in Telangana, is clearly devoid of any merit in the given facts and circumstances, hence rejected”

The case arose from the petitioner's claim for ST reservation for admission to the first-year MBBS course under the Andhra Pradesh State quota for the academic year 2026-27.

The petitioner belonged to the Lambada community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. She was a permanent resident of Telangana and held a community certificate issued by the competent authority in that State in September 2021.

However, she had studied from Class 8^th to Class 12^th in educational institutions in and around Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, for five consecutive academic years from 2021-22 to 2025-26. On that basis, she qualified as a local candidate for admissions in the State.

After appearing for NEET-UG 2026, the petitioner applied for admission to the first-year MBBS course under both the All India Quota and the Andhra Pradesh State quota.

The Medical Counselling Committee accepted her Telangana-issued community certificate and considered her under the ST category for All India Quota seats. However, the Andhra Pradesh State admission authorities considered her under the Open Category instead of the ST category.

Aggrieved by this classification, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The petitioner contended that denying her ST reservation solely because her certificate was issued in Telangana was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, particularly since the Lambada community is recognised as an ST in Andhra Pradesh too.

She argued that her schooling in Andhra Pradesh disqualified her from local-candidate status in Telangana, where she had also applied for admission, while Andhra Pradesh treated her as a local candidate but placed her in the Open Category. She questioned the rejection of certificates previously accepted and argued that the ST reservation granted by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) under the All India Quota should extend to her State quota candidature.

The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that admissions were being conducted in accordance with the applicable Government Orders and the prospectus for the academic year 2026-27.

They relied on Clauses 8 of the prospectus, which prescribed the requirement of a valid community certificate issued by the competent authority of the Government of Andhra Pradesh for candidates claiming SC/ST reservation. They contended that the petitioner's local candidature did not automatically entitle her to claim ST reservation under the State quota on the basis of a certificate issued by another State.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court examined the provisions governing local candidature and reservation for admission to undergraduate medical courses in Andhra Pradesh, particularly Clauses 8 and 10 of the prospectus for the academic year 2026-27.

The Bench noted that that although the petitioner qualified as a local candidate by studying in the State for five consecutive academic years, this did not automatically entitle her to ST reservation.

The Court held that reservation benefits are confined to the State in relation to which a community is notified, and recognition of the Lambada community as a Scheduled Tribe in both States did not entitle the petitioner to claim reservation under the Andhra Pradesh State quota.

It accordingly upheld the admission authorities' decision.

Finding no ground to interfere, the High Court dismissed the writ petition without costs.

Counsel for the Petitioner: P. Girish Kumar and V. Reddy Nikhil Ganesh

Counsel for the Respondents: T. Niranjan, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Evana Sambasiva Pratap, Additional Advocate General; Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare; Tata Venkata Sridevi, Standing Counsel for Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences.