Telangana HC rules in favour of student deemed ‘non-local’ for medical admission due to schooling elsewhere

The division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin asked the student to provide a certificate regarding his father’s employment during the three academic years that he studied outside of Telangana and a nativity certificate proving his family’s origin in Telangana. With these documents, the student can now be considered for admission as a local candidate.

The student contended that he was denied local candidate status because his father was posted in Kolkata for two years. As a result of his father’s transfer, the student had to complete classes 8, 9, and 10 in Kolkata. He had studied in Hyderabad from classes 1 to 7 and returned to the city for his intermediate education.

This situation led KNRUHS to initially classify him as a ‘non-local’ candidate for the 2024-25 academic year, despite his local residency. He successfully challenged this classification in a previous writ petition, and a High Court order from October 16, 2024, directed the university to treat him as a local candidate.

Despite this previous ruling, the student was again listed as an ineligible candidate on KNRUHS’s merit list for the 2025-26 academic year, this time on the grounds of being ‘non-local’.

His petition argued that the latest government order, G.O. Ms. No. 150, dated September 8, 2025, unfairly excludes children of Central Government employees who were transferred outside the state during their children’s studies. The new G.O., based on Supreme Court parameters, lists specific categories of candidates who can be considered local despite having studied outside Telangana.

These categories include children of Telangana State Government employees, Telangana cadre All India Services officers, and Defence personnel, but notably omit children of Central Civil Services officers like his father, the counsel for the petitioner I V Radhakrishna Murthy argued.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that this omission was discriminatory and created two classes of citizens, arguing that the non-inclusion was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the student had been treated as a local candidate the previous academic year based on an earlier government order (G.O.M.S. No. 33) and the High Court’s directive.

Counsel for the state and the KNRUHS informed the court that a recent Supreme Court judgment, dated September 1, 2025, had addressed the grievances of students in similar situations. The apex court’s decision observed that the concerns of those who are natives of Telangana but were forced to study outside the state due to their parents’ employment in government or defence forces had been “allayed”. Following this, the counsel said, the Telangana government issued G.O.M.S. No. 150, which provides a new framework for such cases.

The High Court’s ruling directed the student to present the required documents to the university as per the new government order, specifically an employer’s certificate from his father and a nativity certificate. The court stated that if the petitioner meets the conditions in G.O.M.S. No. 150, his candidature must be treated as a local one in the ongoing counselling process.

The petition was disposed of with a clear directive, allowing the student to be considered for admission in the current academic year’s second phase of counselling.