Telangana HC Directs KNR University to Treat ESIC Employee's Daughter as Local Candidate for MBBS Admission
The Telangana High Court held that children of Central Government employees transferred outside the State cannot be excluded from local candidature for MBBS/BDS admissions under the 2017 Rules, and directed KNR University of Health Sciences to allow the petitioner to participate in counselling for Academic Year 2026-27.
A Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, on 17 August 2026 disposed of a writ petition filed by Kodimela Samhitha, a NEET (UG)-2026 qualifier, who was denied local candidate status for MBBS/BDS admission solely because her father is an employee of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) — a Central Government Corporation. The court found no justifiable basis for excluding children of Central Government employees from the exception carved out under 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 08.09.2025. Taking note of a fair concession by the Advocate General that the gap would be remedied by amendment, the bench issued directions to include such children within the proviso pending the formal amendment, and directed KNR University of Health Sciences to treat the petitioner as a local candidate forthwith.
The Petitioner’s Situation and the Rule That Excluded Her
Kodimela Samhitha was born on 08.02.2008 in Hyderabad and claims permanent residence there. She qualified in NEET (UG)-2026 with 385 marks out of 720, earning an All-India Rank of 310339 in the General Category, making her eligible for MBBS/BDS admission for Academic Year 2026-27.
Her father, Sri Kodimela Rajani Kanth, joined ESIC service on 09.09.1997. While the family was living in Hyderabad, he was transferred to Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, with effect from 15.12.2016. He remained posted there until 21.05.2024, after which he was transferred back to Hyderabad, where he currently serves.
The family relocated to Tirupati following the transfer. Samhitha had studied Nursery to Class IV at Howard Public School, Hyderabad. From Class V onwards, she pursued her education in Andhra Pradesh: Classes V to X at Sri Venkateswara Vidyalaya, Tirupati (2017–2023), followed by Intermediate (BiPC) at Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Tirupati (2023–2025). As a result, she could not complete the requisite four consecutive academic years of study within Telangana.
The Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017 require a candidate seeking admission under Competent Authority Quota to have studied in Telangana for not less than four consecutive academic years ending with the qualifying examination year, or to have resided in Telangana for at least four years immediately preceding the qualifying examination. Rule 3(a)(iii) defines “local area” as the State of Telangana.
G.O.Ms.No.150, issued on 08.09.2025, introduced a proviso to Rule 3(a)(iii) creating exceptions for four categories of candidates who studied outside Telangana during the requisite period: children of Telangana State Government employees posted outside the State; children of officers belonging to the Telangana cadre of All India Services; children of defence personnel, ex-servicemen, and Central Armed Police Force personnel who declared Telangana as their hometown; and children of employees of Corporations, Agencies, or Instrumentalities under the Government of Telangana that are liable to transfer anywhere in India.
ESIC, being a Corporation under the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, did not fall within any of these four categories. Samhitha therefore could not claim the benefit of the proviso, and was not being treated as a local candidate.
She also possessed a Nativity Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad District, vide File No.C2/3573/2026, dated 17.07.2026, certifying that her father is a native of Telangana and that her education outside the State was occasioned by his official transfer — but that certificate alone was insufficient to bring her within the Rule’s proviso.
The Constitutional Challenge and the Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner challenged Sub-Rule (a)(iii) of Rule 3 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.150, insofar as it excludes children of Central Government employees and employees of Central Government Corporations and Undertakings. The prayer sought a declaration that the exclusion is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, and sought a consequential direction to treat her as a local candidate for Academic Year 2026-27.
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajkumar Gummi, argued that the proviso’s object is to protect candidates who could not study in Telangana for the requisite period through no fault of their own, but because of the compulsory transfer of a parent. Having recognised that hardship in relation to four categories of State-linked employees, excluding children of Central Government employees produces a classification with no rational nexus to the object of the Rule. The hardship of relocation is identical whether the parent is employed by the State Government or the Central Government.
The petitioner further argued that the classification is manifestly under-inclusive: children of Central Government employees and employees of Central Government Corporations are equally liable to be transferred outside the State, and suffer the same disability in terms of local candidature. Denying the benefit based solely on the nature of the employer — State versus Central — is wholly unrelated to the genuine educational disruption and the candidate’s connection with Telangana.
Counsel also placed reliance on an interim order dated 11.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.27511 of 2025, where a court in an identical challenge had prima facie found the exclusion of children of Central Government employees to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and had granted interim relief.
The State’s Response
The Advocate General, Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, appearing for the State of Telangana, acknowledged that G.O.Ms.No.150 was issued pursuant to a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 01.09.2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 21536–21588 of 2024 and connected matters, and that the State had confined the exception to categories of employees with a direct nexus to the State Government.
Significantly, the Advocate General conceded that the rationale underlying the exception — protecting children compelled to study outside Telangana on account of parental transfers — applies equally to children of Central Government employees. He assured the court that the issue was under active consideration and that an appropriate amendment or clarification to G.O.Ms.No.150 was likely to be issued.
How the Bench Reasoned
The Division Bench examined the four exception categories introduced by G.O.Ms.No.150. Reading the proviso, the court found that if the State had recognised the hardship of compulsory transfer and created exceptions for Telangana State Government employees, All India Services officers of the Telangana cadre, defence personnel who declared Telangana as their hometown, and employees of Telangana Government Corporations liable to all-India transfer, there was no justifiable reason to exclude Central Government employees posted outside the State who face the same compulsion of relocation.
The bench took note of the Advocate General’s fair and constructive concession, including the express assurance that a formal amendment or clarification would be issued to bring children of Central Government employees, Central Government Corporations, and Central Public Sector Undertakings within the ambit of the proviso.
Given that assurance, the court stated that it did not find it necessary to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of the impugned Government Order at that stage. Instead, adopting what it described as a purposive and constructive approach, the bench chose to prevent irreparable hardship to the petitioner and similarly situated candidates during the period pending the formal amendment, and issued operative directions accordingly.
Directions Issued
The court issued four specific directions in disposing of the writ petition.
The proviso to Rule 3(a)(iii) of the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.150, is to be read — pending the issuance of a formal amendment — as including children of employees of the Central Government, Central Government Corporations, and Central Public Sector Undertakings who have served or are serving outside Telangana. The benefit is available on the same terms and conditions as those applicable to children of State Government employees.
Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (respondent No.2) is directed to treat Samhitha as a local candidate for MBBS/BDS admission for Academic Year 2026-27 under the Competent Authority Quota, and to permit her to participate in the ongoing counselling process.
The State of Telangana (respondent No.1) is directed to expeditiously finalise and issue the necessary clarification or formal amendment to G.O.Ms.No.150 to incorporate employees of the Central Government, Central Government Corporations, and Central Public Sector Undertakings within the ambit of the exception under the proviso to Rule 3(a), as assured by the Advocate General.
The declaration and the relief granted to the petitioner were clarified to operate pro tanto pending the issuance of the formal amendment by the State Government. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were closed. No costs were awarded.
Order
Writ Petition No. 23998 of 2026 was disposed of on 17 August 2026 by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin. The petitioner, Kodimela Samhitha, is to be treated as a local candidate for Competent Authority Quota MBBS/BDS admission for Academic Year 2026-27 at KNR University of Health Sciences. The State of Telangana is directed to issue a formal amendment to G.O.Ms.No.150 to include children of Central Government employees within the Rule 3(a)(iii) proviso, and the declared reading of the proviso operates until that amendment is formally issued.