Telangana HC Orders Kaloji University to Treat NEET Candidate as Local

The Telangana High Court in Hyderabad has directed Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences to treat a NEET-UG 2026 applicant as a local candidate for admission into MBBS and BDS courses for the 2026-27 academic year, following the State's concession that children of Central government employees should be included under the admission rules.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin issued the directive on a petition filed by candidate Kodimela Samhitha. The petitioner had challenged 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 September 8, 2025.

Under the existing provision, candidates who completed their qualifying education outside Telangana could still be classified as local candidates if they fell into four categories: children of State government employees, Telangana-cadre All India Services officers, defence and paramilitary personnel, and employees of State-owned corporations liable to transfer.

The petitioner’s father, an employee of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, was transferred from Hyderabad to Tirupati in December 2016 and posted back in May 2024. During that period, the petitioner completed her schooling and intermediate education in Andhra Pradesh. Because ESIC is a Central government corporation, she was excluded from the exempted categories despite holding a Nativity Certificate confirming her father’s Telangana origin.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the classification lacked a rational nexus with the objective of the rule, pointing out that children of Central government employees experience identical hardships during parental transfers. The counsel also cited an earlier interim order by the High Court where a similar exclusion was deemed prima facie arbitrary.

Advocate General A. Sudershan Reddy, representing the State, conceded that the exception ought to extend to children of Central government employees and informed the court that a clarificatory amendment was under active consideration.

Recording the submission, the Bench ruled that assessing the constitutional validity of the provision was unnecessary at this stage. The court directed that, pending a formal amendment, the rule must be read to include children of Central government, Central government corporation, and Central Public Sector Undertaking employees on equal terms. The university was ordered to admit the petitioner into the ongoing counselling process as a local candidate, with the relief operating pro tanto until the State notifies the amendment.