The Supreme Court on Monday identified the ‘local’ students of the Telangana government as ‘local’ students, who have studied for four consecutive years or have stayed in the state during this period, who are eligible for medical and dental entry.
To ensure the children of government services, defense and paramilitary officers are not excluded on the basis of their parents to serve outside the state, the court approved a proposed amendment for the domicile rule, by which the state agreed to create an exception for such students.
The court order came on an appeal challenging the Telangana High Court’s verdict on 5 September 2024 by the Telangana government, separating the domicile quota rules presented by the state in July 2024.
Allowing the state’s appeals, a bench of Chief Justice (CJI) Bhushan R Gawai and Vinod Chandran of Justice said that there was a mistake in the High Court as it made several decisions of the court, which ensure the state resources to ensure benefits of state resources to ensure state resources to ensure the state’s rights to maintain state’s rights.
It said, “In view of binding examples, holding the ground for three scores and ten years, a lifetime, we are unable to accept the claims of students who did not come under the definition (local student’s) that the rules are excluded, arbitrary and constitutionally invalid.”
However, the bench refers to proviso to add the state to the 2024 rule. “The said Proviso should reduce the grievances of those people who claim that they were taken out of the state due to the compulsion of their parents’ movement outside the state due to the government/ all-India services/ corporations or public sector undertakings, which was formed as a tool in the Telangana state, which is staging as a Stading.”
Advocate Srivan Kumar Karanam along with Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Shankaranarayanan represented by senior advocates. Article 371D provides for special provisions in relation to Andhra Pradesh
At the end of this period, a new law was required. This paved the way to amend the 2017 rules for the Telangana government and to amend a new rule 3 through a government order on 19 July 2024.
This amendment has been provided to those candidates for ‘competent authority quota’ for reservation to a range of 85%, who have either studied in educational institutions in the local area, which is not less than four consecutive academic academic years “Before the year to get admission. Alternatively, Kota can be obtained in such a situation where the student resides in the local area, but any of the four years, but any educational institutions, but any educational institutions, but the entire educational institutions. Without studying in.
The apex court said that the state government was capable of presenting the revised 2024 rules along with the rules of 2017 as the list comes under the entry 25 of the list III (concurrent list) in the constitution.
“We have already assumed that the pre-propelled rules that define a local candidate were completely in order, which also applies to the revised rule in logic. There was no warrant to read when the definition is clear, in accordance with the President’s order and similar rules were kept out of this court, because the binding was coming out of the predecessor, while the High Court had disagreements.
As concerns were raised during concerns, the rule would adversely affect the children of the government/ all-India services/ corporations or public sector undertakings adversely, as well as the defense and paramilitary forces as well as the state to detect their nuts for the state, have been employed to amend the Rule 3 to advance the state.
The proposed amendment requires further, which requires a “certificate of employment” from the competent authority, which testifies to serve the father/mother of the candidate outside the state for years of study conducted by the candidate outside Telangana.
The bench further stated that last year, when the issue was pending in court, a concession was given by the state before the apex court, by which the rule was not strictly implemented against the candidates who failed to fulfill this criteria. The court said that those admissions would not be disturbed.
