New Delhi, Sep 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday suggested Telangana to consider if the new criteria (four years of continuous study and passing the qualifying exam in Telangana) Telangana Local Quota Rule for MBBS admissions could be applied from the next academic year.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, was hearing the challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court, which held that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for four continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.
The amendment done by the Telangana government on July 19, mandated that the amended Rule 3(a) of Rules 2017 that a candidate seeking admission under the 'Competent Authority Quota' for local candidates must study in that state for a period of four consecutive years or reside in the state for four years.
In addition, the candidate has to pass the qualifying examination from Telangana. This amendment was challenged in the High Court on the validity of Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (Rules 2017) amended by the State on July 19.
The batch of petitions challenging the amendment was filed before the High Court.
While, hearing the issue about the Telangana Local Quota Rule for MBBS Admissions, the bench suggested that Telangana consider whether the new criteria (four-year of continuous study and passing the qualifying exam in Telangana) could be applied from the next academic year.
On September 20, the High Court stayed the local government's order after taking on record that Telangana's statement that it was ready to grant a one-time exception for the petitioners who had approached the Court.
During the hearing in the apex ccurt today, senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the State of Telangana, said that the concession made by the state was creating other problems as it was excluding students who have scored more marks than the petitioners.
"One way to resolving equity is that I withdraw the concession on instructions, then you decide on merits," he told the bench.
During the hearing, the state also said that it was considering revoking the earlier concession granted by it for making a one-time exception for the petitioners who had approached the High Court challenging the criteria.
The CJI then said that when the state offered the concession, he felt 'uneasy' as that would only put the original petitioners at an advantage and not other candidates who could not approach the High Court.
"There was something uneasy, I felt you cannot grant a concession to only some persons before the court there is some problem with the concession," the CJI said.
On the last hearing, the Court had expressed concern over the denying local quota benefit to those candidates who, while being permanent residents of Telangana, went to neighbouring states for coaching purposes in the last four years preceding the medical exam.
Gopal S further explained that the present local criteria will only become active at the counselling stage at the state-level after the candidates have taken the NEET UG Exam.
Thus, the argument of the candidates that the amended criteria were brought in unjustly in the middle of the admission process held no merit.
To address the issue of differentiating between genuine local quota candidates and those staying aboard or not living in the state for past four years, the senior Counsel had sought time to get a detailed break up on the candidates' data.
The bench agreed to list the matter on Thursday and asked the state to put all the respondents on notice about the same.
The CJI also remarked - "Not a direction, but Mr Gopal S just see if this (amended criteria) can be applied from next year."
Senior advocates Sadan Farasat and P V Dinesh also appeared for a few candidates.
UNI SNG SS