The Telangana High Court has directed that children of Central Government, Central Government Corporations and Central Public Sector Undertakings (CPSUs) employees who studied outside State due to their parent's posting, must be given benefit of local candidature for medical and dental admissions on same terms as children of State Government employees.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin held that, pending a formal amendment, the proviso to Rule 3(a)(iii) of the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017 must be read to include these categories. The Court said there was no justifiable reason to exclude children of Central Government employees when similar exceptions had already been carved out for other categories of transferable employees.

The Bench observed:

“From the plain reading of the aforesaid clauses, it is relevant to note that if exceptions can be carved out for those categories, reflected in the aforesaid clauses of exceptions, then is no justifiable reason for excluding the Central Government employees posted outside of State of Telangana and their children from availing benefit of the said exception so carved out.”

The Court accordingly directed:

“It is hereby declared that the proviso to Rule 3(a)(iii) of the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.150, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 08.09.2025, shall, pending the issuance of a formal amendment, be read to include children of employees of the Central Government, Central Government Corporations, and Central Public Sector Undertakings, who have served or are serving outside Telangana, for the extension of the benefit of the said proviso, on the same terms and conditions as are applicable to the children of State Government employees.”

The Court passed the order on a petition filed by Kodimela Samhitha, who qualified NEET (UG)-2026 with 385 marks and sought admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2026-27.

The petitioner's father is an employee of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), a corporation under the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment. He joined service in 1997 and served at different places in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

While the family was residing in Hyderabad, her father was transferred to Tirupati in December 2016 and continued to serve there until May 2024, when he was transferred back to Hyderabad.

Consequently, although the petitioner had studied from Nursery to Class IV in Hyderabad, she pursued Classes V to X and her Intermediate education in Tirupati. She was therefore unable to satisfy the requirement of studying for four consecutive academic years in Telangana to qualify as a local candidate.

The petitioner relied on a Nativity Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad District, certifying that her father was a native of Telangana and that her education outside the State was occasioned by his official transfer.

However, she was excluded from local candidature under Rule 3(a)(iii), as amended by G.O.Ms.No.150 dated September 8, 2025.

The Rule generally requires a candidate seeking admission under the Competent Authority Quota to have studied in Telangana for at least four consecutive academic years ending with the year in which they appeared for the qualifying examination.

The proviso, however, makes exceptions for candidates who studied outside Telangana during this period because of their parent's service. These include children of Telangana State Government employees; serving or retired officers belonging to the Telangana cadre of the All India Services; specified defence personnel, ex-servicemen and Central Armed Police Force personnel; and employees of corporations, agencies or instrumentalities under the Telangana Government who are liable to be transferred anywhere in India.

It did not extend the same exception to children of Central Government employees or employees of Central Government Corporations and Undertakings.

The petitioner challenged this exclusion as arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

She argued that the purpose of the exception was to protect students who were compelled to study outside Telangana because of the transferable nature of their parent's employment. There was no rational distinction, she submitted, between children of State and Central Government employees where both had to leave Telangana because of an official transfer.

The petitioner contended that the relevant consideration should be why the student studied outside Telangana and not whether the parent happened to be employed by the State or Central Government. The exclusion was therefore manifestly under-inclusive, she argued.

The State told the High Court that while framing the proviso pursuant to a Supreme Court judgment dated September 1, 2025, it had confined the exception to categories of employees having a direct nexus with the Telangana Government.

However, the Advocate General fairly conceded that the rationale underlying the exception — protecting children compelled to study outside Telangana because of their parents' official transfers — would equally apply to children of Central Government employees.

The State assured the Court that the issue was under active consideration and that an appropriate amendment or clarification was likely to be issued.

In view of this concession, the High Court did not adjudicate the constitutional validity of the impugned provision. Instead, it adopted what it described as a “purposive and constructive approach” to prevent hardship to the petitioner and similarly situated candidates while the proposed amendment was being finalised.

The Court directed Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences to treat the petitioner as a local candidate for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the 2026-27 academic year under the Competent Authority Quota and permit her to participate in the ongoing counselling process.

It further directed the Telangana Government to expeditiously issue the necessary clarification or formal amendment to G.O.Ms.No.150 to include employees of the Central Government, Central Government Corporations and CPSUs within the exception.

The Court clarified that its declaration and the relief granted to the petitioner would operate pro tanto pending issuance of the formal amendment by the State.

Case Title: Kodimela Samhitha v. State of Telangana & Anr.

Case No.: W.P. No. 23998 of 2026

Appearance: Rajkumar Gummi for the petitioner; A. Sudershan Reddy, Advocate General, for the State; T. Sharath, Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, for Respondent No. 2

Click Here To Read/Download Order