Disposed

Maliha Tahreem v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Oct 2025WP/30495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A medical admission aspirant who missed the first-phase web option registration sought permission to register in later MBBS/BDS counselling under Management Quota B category. The court disposed of the petition permitting her to make a representation to the University, which must decide it within two days without expressing merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make representation to respondent No.2 University, to be considered per law within two days.

Maliha Tahreem Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^{3488 ]}

¶2

rN rHE^{HrGH .orII3$rtJtoBt#EoF TELANGANA}

¶3

(SPeciai^{OriginalJurisdiction)}

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE^{EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER} "-"ilo iHousnr'ro AND TW'ENTY FlvE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

:THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICE APARESH KUMARSINGH} AND THE HoNouRnele^{sni.lUsrrceG'M' MoHluDDlN} WRIT PETITIO^{N NO:30495oF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Itilaliha Tahreem.^{D/o Rafeeq Ahmed'Aged About-lg Years'Occ} Student, R/o H.No^{3-B-1olB.parxotallaii;b;d' Teiangana- 504001'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 I:::.'+Hi,-?lillP,?3';&l#;"Ji'.P#:iJ,:l'J"1!:"?:l"lrift ")XB:'o"1333 Health^{Sciences, representedby its}

¶12

2 R?t",, *rrrrrna^{Rao UniversitYof} Registrar.^{Warangal. Telangana}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith'the High Court maybe} pleased to^{issue an appropriatewrit' order or dlrection' more particularlyone in} the nature^{of a Writ of [vlandamus'declaring the action of the respondents'} particularly the^{2nd respondent' in not consideringthe petitioner's requestfor} registration^{and exercising weboptions for admission into the MBBS/BDScourse} under Management^{Quota B category in the ongoingor next phaseof counselling} for the academic^{year 2025-26, as illegal'arbitrary'and unconstitutionaland} consequently^{direct. the respondents-to consider and permit the petitionerto} registerandexerciseweboptionSforadmissionintotheMBBs/BDScourseunder l/anagementOuotaBcategoryfortheacademicyear2025-26intheongoingor next^{phase of counseling}

¶15

IA NO: 10F 2025

¶16

petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stateci in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to pass an interim order, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner,s request for registration and to permit the petitioner to exercise web options under Management Quota "B" category for admission into the MBBS/BDS course in the ongoing or next phase of counsering for the academic year 2025-26, pending disposal of the above Writ petition

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. KAVALI VISHNU KANTH

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.-t SRI TANDRA RAMESH, fgl loR^{MEDICALHEALiH} AND FAMILY WELFARE

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI T. SHARATH, SC FOR KNRUOHS The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

-1/

¶21

TIIE HON'BLE T^{TIECHIEFJUSTICESRI APARESII K['I[ARSINGH} AND

¶22

THE HON^{,BLE SRI JUSTICEG.M:MOHruDDIN}

¶23

WRIT PETITI^{ON No.3O49 5 of 2o25}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Mr.K.Vishnu^{Kanth,Iearnedcounsel appears for the} petitioner.

¶26

Mr.Tandra^{Ramesh, learnedAssistantGovernment} Pleader for^{Health, Medical andFamilyWelfare} Department,^{appears for respondent No'1'}

¶27

Mr.T.Sharath,^{IearnedStanding Counsel for Kaloji} Narayana^{Rao Universityof HealthSciences (hereinafter} referred to as, "the^{University"), appearsfor respondent} No.2, virtuallY.

¶28

This writ petition has been filed^{by the petitioner} seeking a direction to the respondents to permit her to exercise web option for admission into MBBS/BDS course under Management Quota "8" category for the academic year 2025 2026 tn the next phase ofcounselling.

¶29

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that due to ill health, she could not complete the registration process within the prescribed time and has promptly approached the authorities upon recovery, but the authorities did not permit her r.o exerc.tse web option in t ht ":-:_^{rrrtle first} phase of counsejring for admissi.,- ''., ssion into MBB./BD. course under Management euota "8" category'' for the academic year 2o2s-26before 2:00 p.rr. on 24.Og.2O25 in terms of the notification dated 22.O9.2025.

¶31

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel lor the University has referred to the notification dated 22.Og.2025. It is submitted that rhe note and instructions to the candidates, categoricall-y specify that the candiclates in the final merit list, who do not exercise web options in the first phase of counselling, shall not be eligible to exercise web options in the subsequent phase of counselling to prevent seat blocking. petitioner is one such candidate, who has not eKefcised her web options in the first round of counselring nOf has opted^{for admissioninto MBBS/BDScou'rseunder} Management^{Quota "8" category' rn'here after she cor.ld}

¶33

¶34

avail the^{rernainingseats under 'C/NRI'quota'He submits} that the^{corrigendumdated 04' lO'2O25 and 06'|0'2025} permits^{fresh registrationsonly to such candidates'who} had exercised^{web options' Therefore' the petitionerdoes} not fit^{in the said' category' He' however'submits that if} the petitioner^{makes a representation' the University would} consider^{it in accordancewith law'}

¶35

Having^{considered thesubmissions oflearned} counsel^{for the petitioner as also the learned Standing} counsel^{for University and having regard to the above facts} and circumstances'^{petitioner is allowed liberty to make a} representation^{before respondent No'2-University in} respect of^{her claim for exerciseof web options for} admissionintoMBBs/BDScourse,fortheacademicyear 2025-26^{under ManagementQuota "8" category' On} receipt of such^{representation, the Universitywould} consider the^{same in accordalce with law within a period} of two days.

¶36

¶37

¶38

6' If the university allows the petitioner to exercise her web options, her case shall be considered in the unfilled seats in the rnop_up round.

¶39

7 . Let it be made clear that we have not expressed aly opinion on the merits of the case.

¶40

B Accordingl-y, the writ petition is disposed of There shall b e no orcler as to costs

¶41

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶42

stand closed.

¶43

SD/. B. REKHA RAN A NT REGISTBAR--:

//TRUE COPYII

CTION OFFICER

To,

1 The,State of Telangana, represented bV its p Health Famity Welfare o"pi.tr""ilSJJruirri^{rincipal Secretary,A/edical} and at tsuildings, Hvderabad _ 500 2. Kaloji Naravana Rao University of Health Sciences, represented by its ^^{Ie9i.-lril,W-arangat,Tetangaria} s One CC to sRt. xnvnu vis^uNu KANTH Advocate topucl 4. rwo ccs to Gp FoR MED,.AL HE;Lii'iNilii,r,,rrv WELFARE.Hioh \L.' ',v' court for the State of re-lansina ,i Hft;r;;';J idul 6. 5 Two one CD cc to CopiesSRt. r SHARAiH: sc'idR"KNiriJd[i topuct B IVI GJP

¶48

HIGH COURT

¶49

DATED:0Bt1Ot2O2S

¶50

16 Eri ZUE i j
.) I
_.

¶51

ORDER

¶52

WP.No.30495 of 2O2S

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Maliha Tahreem v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maliha Tahreem v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Pulsepalette Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Simra Container Lines Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax And Commissioner (In-Situ)

Dr. Matcha Kalyani Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Synergy Foods and Beverages Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

Gondwana Dandakaranya Party Vs The State Election Commission

M/s. Navya Milk Dairy, Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1