Dismissed

Polineni Pavani Venkata Harika v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Mar 2025WP/1893/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A non-local MBBS graduate sought admission to PG-Medical course for 2024-25 against the un-reserved 15% quota under the Presidential Order, 1974. The court found amended Rule VIII requiring local-candidate status blocked her claim, noted she had not challenged that provision, distinguished Dr. Tanvi Behl, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; interim relief vacated, pending miscellaneous applications closed, no costs.

Polineni Pavani Venkata Harika Vs The State of… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2025)

I I

[³⁴⁴⁶¹

, I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY^{OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF^{JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUETICE^RENUKAYARA

¶8

WRIT PETITION N0: 1893 OF² 25

¶9

Between:

¶10

Polineni Pavani^{Venkata Harika, D/o. P. Thirupathi Rlg} 4S".^{29 years, Occ.} Student, R/o. 6-3-5/1/3/40'l ,^{TRI StarHomes, BehindZP Quarters,Khammam-} Telangana-50700'1^.

d:Y

...PETITIONER

AND

1 The State of Telangana. represented^{by its Principal Secretary, Medical and} - Health Family Welf"are Department,^{SedretariatBuildings,Hyderabad'SO0 055}

¶15

2 Kaloji Nqrarpyana Bao University^{of Health Sciences, reprqsentqd by lts} Registrar, Warangal.

¶16

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Conslitution qf India prayingtha! in the} circumstances statedⁱⁿ the^{affidavit filed therewith,the High Qourt may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ,^order 9r^{di;ection more pa(icularlyonein} the nature^{qf writ} of^{mandamus decl4ringthe action of the respondents in not} leserving^{15 percent of Un-reserved seatsin Competelt {llthorityquota as per} presidential order, 1974 and the^{action of the 2nd respondent uDiversity in not} considgring the^{petitioner for registrationfor admission into PG-Medicalcourse for} the academic^{year 2024-25 under Managemerlt Qucta category as illegal,} arbitrary, uncon stitutiona^I and^{consequently directthe respondents to re-serve15} percent of seats of competent authority^{quota for Un-reserved seatsas per} presidential order, 1974 and consider^{the petitionerfor admission iptoPG} Medical course under^{Un-reservedseats} and^{consequently direct the ?nC}

¶18

¶19

.'1

¶20

respondent university' to^{permit the petitionerfor registration for admission into} pG-Medical course for the academic year 2024-25 under Managernent Quota.

¶21

lA NO: 1 oF 2025

¶22

Petition underr Sectron 151^{CPC praying that in the circumstanges$1ated in} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High court may be plqased to} direct the^{2nd respc,ndentto consider the petitioner request for registration for} admission^{into Pri.Medical courseundeI ConlpetentAuthorilyQuota and} Management^{Quota pending digposal of the writ pqtition,}

¶23

Counse! for the Petitioner^{: SRI M,DURGA PRASAD}

¶24

Counsel^{forthe Respondent} No.1^: QP^{FOR MEDICALHEALTH FW}

¶25

Counsel^{forthe Respondent} No.2^: $Rl^T,$HARATH, SC FOR KNRUHS

¶26

;'^{The Cqurt made.thefollowing:ORDER}

¶27

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING^{CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE^{RENUKA YARA}

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.1893 of 2o25

¶29

ORDER:^(Per Hon'ble^{The Acting Chief Justice)}

¶30

In this petition filed under Article^{226 of the Constitution,} the petitioner has^prayed to^{declarethe action of the respondents} in not reserving l5o/o of un-reserved^{seatsin CompetentAuthority} Quota^{as per Presidential Order, 1974 and also the action of} respondent No.2-university^{in not considering the petitioner for} registration of admission^{into PG-Medical coursefor the academic} year 2024 25 under Management Quota^{Category,as illegal,} arbitrary, unconstitutional^{ald sought consequentia-ldirections(i)} to the respondents to^{reservel1Vo of seats of CompetentAuthority} Quota^{for un-reserved seats as per Presidential Order, 1'974,(iil to} the respondents to consider^{the petitioner for admission into} Postgraduate Medical^{courseunder Un reserved seats, and (iii) to} respondent No.2 university^{to permit the petitionerfor registration} for admission into PG-Medical^{course for the academic year} 2024-25.

¶31

FACTS:-

¶32

Shorn of unnecessa{/^{details, the case of the petitioneris} that shd is aggrieved by^{actionof respondent No'2-Universityin} \ \

*r,-t\

)

HA,-.r(SP.J)&RY, Wp 1893_2025

¶38

rejecting her application for PG MD/MS course under^{'Competent'-</sup> Authority Quolar'for the Academic Yeat 2024-25. The petitioner is native of Kharrrrn am District of Telangana State ald completed her school and int,ermediate education in the year 2012 frorn the State of Telangala.}

¶39

The petitirner, after completion of intermediate: education, studied MBBS eLt NRI Medica-l College at Guntur Distrir;], of Andhra Pradesh State iand completed the said course in the year 2Ol7 . She got herself enrolled in Andhra Pradesh Medical tlouncil on 08.05.2019. 1'he petitioner, after completion of MBBS;. attempted PG NEET-202,4 examinations and secured rank of 182217 under General Category. On O8.01.2O25, respondent llo.2 issued notification for online registration under 'Competer: I Authority Quota'^{for P() MedicalDegree/ Diploma courses frt2024-25.} Earlier, the cut off marks for General Category candidate were 5O percentiie. Flo'uvever, by the order dated 08.01.2():15, it was reduced to 15 percentile.

¶40

On 30.10.'2024, respondent No.2 issued prospectus for Postgraduate M.edical Degree and Diploma courses and opined that caldidates of other States are not eligible under 'Competent Aqthority QuoteL'. On 09.01.2025, tlne petitioner subrrLitted online

, /

HACJ (SP,J) &^RY,J Wp_I893 2025

I I

application in^{the web portal of respondent No'2' On ll'Ol'2025'} the petitioner^{received fina1 reminder message in her mobile} number intimating^{to upload the certihcates on or before1 1:OO} AM on 12.01.2025,^{failing whichthe applicationwill be rejected'}

¶54

The stand of the^{petitioner isthat on1 1'O1 '2025' the} petitioner unsuccessfully^{tried to uploadher certificatesin online} portal, but as^{per the slot of college allotted to the petitioner i'e''} NRI Medical^{College, Guntur, AndhraPradesh' was not shownin} the web portal^{and accordingly, the petitioner couldnot upload} her application.^{The petitioner telephonically informedrespondent} No.2 about this^difficultY

¶55

Contention of the^petitioner:-

¶56

Sri M. Surender^{Rao, learned SeniorCounselfor the} petitioner, by taking^{this Court to certain paragraphs of common} order dated^{17.12.2024 in W'P'Nos'3O771of 2024 and batcl:'} decided by a^{Division Bench of this Court' urgedthat the} Presidential Order,^{1974 issued under Article 37 lD ofthe} Constitution^{which deals with educationstill applies to the State} of Telangana.^{The Presidential Order dated O3'07'1974(Annexure} P-5) is relied upon^{to contendthat a conjointreadingof paragraph} \ Nos.5 and 6^{leaves no room for any doubt that 85% of the seats</sup>}

¶57

¶58

HA.(J(SP,J)&RY. \'p_l 893_202s

¶59

a-re reserved irr lavour of 'local candidates'. The^petitioner claiming her right of consideration against remaining l5ok vacancles.

¶60

The ne::t limb of argument is based on The Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules 2O2l ('Rules of 2O2l'1. It is submitted that Rule I deals w ith 'eligibility criteria' and as per thi:; Rule, the petitioner is^'very much eligible to participate in the admission process. RuLle-VIII deals with 'reseruation in fav,t rr of local candidates'.^'lhe Ruies of 2O2l were amended by G.O.Ms.No.148, dated 28. lO .2024 (Annexure P-2). It is strenuously cor-rtended that mainly Rtrle VIII of Rules of 2021 was amerLded which essentially deals with 'loca,l candidate'. Thus, Rule Iof Rules of 2O2 1 which p,rescribes tligibility criteria' has not undergone any amendment and the Division Bench in W.P.No.30777 of 2024 and batch clearly held that Rules-I, VI and VIII can co-exi.:t and there is no 'head on'between Rules-I. VI and VIII of Rules of 2021 . ln this backdrop, learned Senior Counsei for the petitic,rrer submits that the respondents have erred in depriving the petitioner from her right of consideration against 157o quota

¶61

¶62

¶63

HACJ^{(SP,J)& RY,J} Wp-1893-2025

¶64

¶65

.. B. Learned Senior^{Counsel for the petitionerby taking this} Court to the^{counterfiled by respondentNo'2contendedthat} is based^on whole defence^{ofrespondentNo'2-University} G.O.Ms.No.148,^{dated 28'lO'2024'The petitionerwas held to be} ineligible for^{'Competent AuthorityQuota' as per G'O'Ms'No'148'} It was further^{argued that the petitioner did not register herself} As per^{G.O.Ms.No'148,} a online for^{'ManagementQuota''} caldidate^{can be treated to be eligibleforadmissioninto} Postgraduate^{Medical courses only if} he / she is^Indian Nationa-l/Person^{of Indian Origin/OverseasCitizen of India Card} Holder and^{be a'local caldidate''It is submitted that the whole} counter of^{respondent No'2 is based on G'O'Ms'No'148' which} only amended^{Rules of2O2l inrelation of'localcandidate} reservation'^{mentioned under Rule-VIII'Since petitioner is not} claiming right^{of consideration as local candidate and conhning} her claim^{againstremaining 157oquota' G'O Ms'No'148cannotbe} a hurdle for^{her.The previous minimumpercentile i'e''5O} percentile stood^{reduced to 15 percentileald petitionergot more} than 15^{percentile marks, she is entitled against157o quota'}

\ \

I Un lJ (SI',J) & R \/p 1893 2025

¶70

Contention of the respondents:-

¶71

Sri T. fiharath, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, submitsi [hat from 2018, the selections are beirLgl conducted through NEE"|. 5O% of the seats are being filled up blr the Central Government t.hrough NEET and only remaining 5O% of the seats are being lillerl r-Lp by the State

¶72

He furt.h,:r submits that broadly there are tu'o kinds of quotas for filJ.ir-rg up the seats viz., 'Competent Auttrority Quota' and'Managernent Quota'. G.O.Ms.No.4O, dated 09.O5.2017, defines both the quotas. By taking this Court to the tlefinition of 'Management lieats' as per G.O.Ms.No.4O, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that apart from the seats which are earmarked frorn out of the salctioned intake of seats, remaining seats will be under 'Competent Authority Seats'. Putting it differently, it is submitted that only earmarked se:r1s shall fall within 'Management Seats' and remaining u,ill be under 'Competent Aut,hority Quota'.

¶73

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 placed reliance on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of The Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Ao$, \ 2OL4 (for shLc rt, Reorganization Act') and urgerl that after formation of the State of Telangana, erstwhile districts of common

¶74

I' I i

¶75

¶76

HACJ^(SP,J) &^RY,J Wp_1893-2025

i I

Andhra Pradesh^{were bifurcated/dividedarnongstnewly formed} states i.e., Andhra^{Pradesh and Telangana' The Reorganization} Act can be termed^{as 'temporarylaw'' The conceptof temporary} law has been^{considered by the ApexCourt in Krishna Kumar} Singh v. State^{of Biharr and it was held that if Parliament/State} Legislature intent^{to revive the state of aifairs which were existing} before the temporary^{law was promulgamated,itwould have to} bring a law which^{has a retrospectiveeffect' A disapproval by the} Legislature cannot^{revive completedtralsaction' This principleis} buttressed to highlight^{the point that as per Section95 of the} Reorganization^{Act, the previous arrangement includingmethod} and extent^{of filing seats was required to be followed for ten (10)} years which^{were over by 02.06} '2024'^{The selection in question is} subsequent to^{the said date i'e', 02 '06 '2024 '}

¶81

It is^{strenuously contended bylearned counselfor} respondent No.2^{that after ten (10) years from appointed day i'e''} 02 -O7 .2014, there^{exists no bifurcationof 857o and 15% quota'} The entire seats^{can be filled up by the 'local candidates''The} earlier concepts^{of 'zones' in relationto filling up the seats for} education fades^{into insignificance' He submits thatthe} Coordinate Bench^{in W.P'No'3o77 1 of 2024and batch has not\q}

'(2017)^{3 sccI}

,'h," "ldlIXir.

HI(]J^(SI,,J) & R Wp_1893 202s

¶87

exarnined the matter from this point of view and, thr:refore, any observation ma(le therein regarding interpretation of lSection 95 of the Reorganization Act ald limiting of ten years mentioned hereinabove i:s d rstinguishable.

¶88

He furtLre r submits that a careful reading of G.O.Ms.No.148, dated 28.1O.2).Ct24, shows that from paras I to 4, the background is clearly men-:ioned pursuant to which the Rules ct 2027 were amended. Explanation (b) to Rule VIII (ii) although is struck down, the remaining Rule is still there in the statutorl book. The present petiti,cner is not covered under Rule VilI anrl not a'local candidate'for the purpose of admission in the State o1''Ielangana

¶89

lt is fr-rrther submitted that Presidential Notificeition of 1974 for the purpclse of admission cannot be treated to be extended beyond ten (10) years in the light of Section 95 of the Reorganizatio n Act. Thus, its applicability came to end on 02.06.2024.

¶90

Reioinder submissions:-

¶91

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, b1, placing reliance on a recent judgment of Supreme Court in Dr. Tanvi

) )

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J wp_l 893_2025

¶96

¶97

.r Behl v. Shtey Goel2, submits that^{inPG Medical Courses, the} selection has to be done^{on merits.Thus, alternative argument is} that even if the petitioner is not^{entitled to be consideredagainst} 15% quota arising out of the^{Presidentia'l Order, 1974, she is} entitled to be considered on her^{own merits.Thus, looking from} any angle, the petitioner^{deserves a consideration on merits'}

¶98

During the course^{of hearing, learned counselfor the parties} submits that the minimum^{percentilehas again beenreduced} during the^{pendency of} this^{writ petition.}

¶99

t7. No other point is^{pressedby learned counsel for the parties'}

¶100

We have heard learned^{counsel for the partiesdt length and} perused the record.

¶101

FINDINGS:

¶102

Before dealing^{with rival contentions,it is apposite to quote} the relevant portion of^{G.O.Ms.No.148dated28 'lO} '2024^whereby the Rules of 2O2l were alnended,^{whichreads thus:}

¶103

Dated:28.1O.2O24. "G.O.Ms.No. 148 Read the following:

¶104

1.The Andhra Pradesh Reorgarriation^{Act, 2074 (Central Act} No.6 f 2014).

¶105

'?2025^{SCCOnlineSC 180}

¶106

¶107

¶108

2.G.O.Ms.No.186, 20.09.2Ct2t.	l0 HM & FW(C1) ^'	t{1(lJ(SP,J)& Wp1893_202s Department,dated r.
3.G.O.Ms.No.155, la.tI.2ct2l.	HM &FW^(Cl)	Department,dated
4.G.O.Ms.No.109, 22.O8.2Ct22.	HM & FW(C1)	Department,dated

¶109

5.G.O.Ms.No.76, HM & FW (Cl) Department, dated 03.O7.2023.

¶110

6.From fle gistrar, KNRUHS, Warangal, Lr.No.1119/ KNRUIlrj,/Admissions/2O24, dt. 79.O8.2024.

¶111

ORDER

¶112

The Registrar, Kaloji Narayana Rao University ,rf Health Sciences, Te langana in the letter 6ft above, has proporsed certain amendments to the Telangana Medical Colieges (Admissions into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 202 1 issued in the G.O. third read abc,ve in view of the completion of 10 years lteriod after formation of T,:langana State

¶113

Sectiorr 9.'i of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization ,\ct, 2Ol4 (Central Act No.6 of 2074), provides that the existing admission quotas in all (iovernment or Private, aided or unaided, In stitutions of higher, tc'c hnical and medical education in so fa r as it is provided uncle r Article 371-D of the Constitutior-r shall continue as such for a period of ten years during which the existing common admission process shall continue.

¶114

Consequent upon expiry ofthe period often years prowided in section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act 2014, by 2od June, 2OL4, t\e Government, after careful examination of the matter, have decided to ameud the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Postgradua te Medical Coursesl Rules, 2021 issued vide G.O. third read above.

¶115

Accordingd.", the following notihcation shall be publish.ed in the Telangana Gzzette, Dated: 29. 1O.2024.

¶116

NOTIFICATION

¶117

In exercis;e of powers conferred by section 3 read rvith subsection (1) of section 15 of the Telangana Educational Lt stitutions (regulation o.[ Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act no. 5 of 1983), the Government of Telangana hereby make the folltrving amendments to the Telansana Medica I Colleses (Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021 issued vide G.O .Ms.l'{o.155. HM&FW (c1) Dept, dated 1 8.11 .20'.21 , and as subsequentil. amended from time to time:-

{
(

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wp_I893 202s

'){

AMENDMENT

In the said rules,

(1) in Rule IV, for sub-rule (i), the following^shallbe substituted: namely:-

¶128

"(1) 15o/o, 1O%o and 29o/o of the^{total numberof seats} notihed in each of postgraduate^{degree and diploma} courses separately shall be^{reserved forScheduled} Castes, Scheduled Tribes and^{BackwardClasses} respectively".

¶129

(2) In Rule V,

¶130

(a) for sub-rule (i), the following shall be^substituted namely:-

¶131

"(i) The reservations to SC,^{ST and BC categories shall} be 15% lOVo ar,d^{29Votn each broadspecialt5/'.}

¶132

(b) sub-rules (xiv), (xv) and (xvi) shal1^{be de1eted".}

¶133

(3) In Rule VI, for sub-rule (iv), the^{followingshallbe} substituted namely:-

¶134

"(iv) It is further clarihed that 'in-service^{candidate' means,} a candidate who has Putⁱⁿ

¶135

(a) two years of continuous regular service^{in tribal areas'}

¶136

Tribal service means service^{located in tribal areas} institutions recognized by the^Governmentof Telangana.

¶137

(b) three years of continuous^{regular ruralservice}

¶138

"Rural service means service^{rendered inPrimary} Health Centres, Subsidiary^{HealthCentres,} Dispensaries, Taluk Hospitals,^{Mobile MedicalUnits,} Leprosy Control Units or^{the sample survey-cum-} Assessment units, under^{LeprosyTemporary} hospitalization wards^{situated in Taluks and kprosy} Training Centre in Telangana."

¶139

¶140

"Continuous regular^{service'meansregularservices} in the State of Telangana^{in the following services:-}

¶141

(1) Directorate of Medical Education-

.-1'. l

i..4.:

IIA(ji (sP.J) & R 'Wp_1893 2025

¶147

i2) Directorate of Public Health & Fan-r Lly Welfare.

¶148

¶149

i3) Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad.

¶150

i4) Insuralce Medical Service.

¶151

i5) Singareni Coliieries.

¶152

t6) Any other service notihed by Government

¶153

,rf Telangana".

¶154

(4) In Rule /lII, for sub-rules (i) and (ii) the following shall be substitutec[ :-ramely: -

¶155

(i) A candidate to be eligible for admission into P.G. Medical Courses under these rules should be an Indian National/Person of Indian Origin/Overseas Citiz,:n of India Card Holder ald be a Local Candidate

¶156

(ii) LSgAlS4adldAlq_means a candidate who has studied in the erlr.rcational institutions in the State of Telangana for q pericd of not less than four (4) consecutive ! ears ending vri !l-r the academic vear in which he appeare d or as the cirsc may be, hrst appeared in the relevant qualifvil'lg erxamination subicct to:

¶157

Explanation (a): A candidate who is regarded as a Local Candidate for the purpose of admissiorL to Undersrzxluate (MBBS) in the State of Telangana but has studied:Lr:. a State-wide Institutions outside the State of TelansarLa . shall also be rc arded as a Local Candidate

¶158

Explanation (bl: A candidate, who has se:ured admission to the relevant Undergraduate Course (MIIBS) under Non-Local Quota in the State of Telangana, shall not be regarded as a Local Candidate.

¶159

(5) In Rule [X, sub-rules (v) and (vi) shail be deleted.

¶160

(6) In Rule IX, in sub-rule (xxiii), clauses (s) and (t) s.rrall be deleted.

¶161

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVtrtaNOR OF TELANGANA)

¶162

DT.CHRISTINA Z. CIJ ONGTHU SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT"

¶163

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶164

The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is

¶165

that the eligitrility criteria mentioned in Rule-l has not been ,/

¶166

¶167

¶168

HACJ^(SP,J) &^RY,J Wp_1893-2025

¶169

arnended by^{G.O-Ms.No.148dated 28'lO'2O24'The petitioneris} eligible under^{Rule-I and therefore,even otherwise' the petitioner} has a right^{of consideration in a PG seat in Telangana'We do not} see any merit^{in this contention for the simple reason that the} G.O.Ms.No.155,^{dated l8.ll'2o2t,which is known as Rules of} 2021, stood^{amend'edby G'O'Ms'No'148,dated2a'lO'2O24'} Rules-I and^{VIII must be read conjointly' This is trite that the} Courts must^{makeendeavorto read and interpretdifferent parts} of the statute^{harmoniously, unlessit is impossible to advance} such interpretation.^{More-so,when valid'ity of amendedRules} through G.O.Ms.No.148^{is not subjectmatter of challenge'}

¶170

It is equally^{noteworthy that in the previousround of} litigation^{before the coordinateDivisionBenchin W'P'No'30771 of} 2024 and batch^{decided' on 17'12'2O24'tine constitutionality of} G.O,Ms.No.148^{waschallengedand the Court has reproducedit in} The conclusion^{drawn bY the} paragraph No.18^{of its judgment'} Court reads^thus:

¶171

"9O. In^{view of the precedinganalysis,trxpianation(b) to Rule} Vrrl ii! oi T.t..tg^tt,^{MedicalColleges (Admissioninto Post} C.ual.t" Medical^{Courses) Rules' 2021 as amended by} C.O.fVf".f".^{f +8, dated 28.LO'2O24,and Explanation (b) to} R"l" I 1ii} of in"^{Telangana Admission.intoPostGraduate} invusni^{6or.""" Rules,2o24 issued-vide. G'o'Ms'No'149'} iated 28.^{10.2 O24, are struck down'Suchpetitioners who have} .o-pl.t.d^{MBBS/BAMS/BHMS} "9Yl=-I.o:;1,-th"^{State of} Telangana^{or have compl'eted MBBS/BAMS/BHMS from'local} area' as^{dehned in the Presidential Ordet} '^{1974 are held}

¶172

¶173

¶174

Hr\cJ (sP.i) & R Wp J 893 202s

¶175

entitled to^.oarticipate in the counselling for admission to post graduate c()urses in the State of Telangana in respe<;t of seats for local czrn<lidates for the Academic Year 2024-25."

¶176

f.'

¶177

(Emphasis :iupplied)

¶178

Only ExpLanation (b) of Rule VIII (ii) as amendecl by Rules of 2021 through^{(].O.Ms.No.148} and Explanation (b) of Flule 8 (ii) of the Telangana Admission into Post Graduate (AyUIlH) Courses Rules, 2O24 issued ujde G.O.Ms.No.149, dated 28.l).2024 were struck down. Thus, remaining portion of G.O.Ms.Nio.148 got a stamp of apprc,r'al from this Court. The Bench is ir:iformed that SLP No.307O6-.3O7O8/2024, against the order of judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3077 I of 2024, is pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court grarted an interim reiiel' to the inservice candidates. The petitioner is admittedly not zur in service candidate. The inevitable conclusion arises from thr: conclusion drawn by this^,3ourt in W.P.No,3O77I of 2024 and ba.tch is that the Rule VIII rvhich is coming in the way of the petitioner has not been set aside. Thus, said Rule is certainly corning in the way of the petitioner.

¶179

The contention of learned Stalding Counsei for respondent No.2 that after introduction of the examination system through NEET, 50% s€:ats are frlled up as All India seats an<1 remaining 50%o seats through Management and Competent Auth ority euota 6t.-

1 I

HACJ^(SP,J) &^RY,J Wp_I893 2025

¶184

¶185

has not been^{controvertedby learned Senior Counselfor the} petitioner. Thus,^{if the petitioneris eligible under5O%o All India} quota in view of reduction^{of percentile,the respondentsshall} consider her claim^{for the allotment of seat in accordance with} law.

¶186

: 'j

¶187

A careful^{reading of G'O'Ms'No'148shows the background} reasons for introduction^{of the amended Rulesof 2O2l 'The} reasons mentioned^{in G.o.Ms.No.148which, in our opinion, were} foundational^{reasons for amendingthe Rules'202 1' The limited} i.tt".f"."nce^{-was made in W'P'No'3077 I of 2024 and batch to the} extent highlighted^{hereinabove '}

¶188

25.LearnedSeniorCounselforthepetitioner,although,had taken^pains to^{submitthat in view of certainobservationsgivenin} the^{judgmentof W.P.No.3O77lof 2024and batch' the 157o quota} as per the .Presidential^{Order, 1974, stlll subsistsagainstwhich a} right of consideration'^{we are unable to persuadeourselveswith} this line of argument^{because it cannot be forgottenas to what is} actually decided^{by thecoordinate Division Bench in} W.P.No.3O77 I^{of 2024.This is trite that precedent is what has} actually been^{decidedaldnot what is logically flowing from a} previous^{judgment (see Regional Manager v'Pawan Kumar} \ \

' : '''i:'' -"'

,.--&}*

ru(lJ (SP,J) & Wp_1893_202s

¶196

Dubey3, Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat+ and Union of India v. Major Bahadur Singhs). The previotrs Bench in W.P.No.3077 1 of 2024 has actually did not interfere with G.O.Ms.No.148 except to the extent of declaring trxplanation (b) as ultra uires.^'Ihe remaining portion of G.O.Ms.N,:.148 dated 28.10.2024 i.e., Rule VIII (i) & (ii) is still coming in the way of the petitioner which were called in question in W.P.No.3O'777 of 2024, but were not interfered with.

¶197

In this petition, the petitioner has not chzr-1lenged the constitutionality of amended Rule VIII of G.O.Ms.No..t.18. This is trite that if constitutionality of a provision which is coming in the way of the pet.it-ioner is not called in question, the Cor:rt is bound to treat it as intra uires and interpret the same accor-dingiy (see Molar Mal v. Kay lron Work (Pl Ltd.6). This is equally settled that relief not claimed cannot be granted (see State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohantyz).

¶198

So far reliance on the judgment of Dr.Tanvi Behl (supra) is concerned, it ir; pertinent to note that those Writ pe.titions were

¶199

t eln t976 sc tzoo

¶200

o atn tgsz sc tot: 'lzoooy^{t scc :os}

¶201

6 lzoooy + scc zss

¶202

'lzor^{ry :.scca:o}

t I

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wp 1893 2025

originally filed^{before Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging} tine uires of the provision^{which were coming in the way of} admission of the petitioners therein.^{Whileexaminingsuch} provisions, the Apex Court^{gavefindings in Dr.Tanvi Behl (supra)'} At the cost of repetition,^{inthe instantcase, Rule-VIII of} G.O.Ms.No.148 is^{comingin the way of the petitioner,but it is not} called in question and^{in W.P.No.3O77l of 2024, the interference} was not made to the^{said G.O.Ms.No.148 except to explanation(b)'}

¶211

The background^{facts andreasons forissuing} G.O.Ms.No.148^{make it clearthat the operative reason was thatas} per Article 37 lD of the Constitution^{and Section 95 of the} Reorganization Act, the^{existing admission quotas shall not} continue beyond a^{period of ten years.Despite the fact that} G.O.Ms.No.148 is^{pregnant with this object and reason, the entire} G.O., and the^{provisionswhich are coming in the way of the} petitioners were not^{interfered with by the previous Bench'Thus'} the^judgment of Dr.Tanvi^{Behl (supra) cannot be pressed into} service in the instant^{casewhere no challenge is made to the} offending provision.