Telangana HC allows students to apply for MBBS, BDS under Competent Quota despite 4-year rule
The petitions challenged the validity of Rule 3(a) of the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, as amended by GO Ms. No 33, dated July 19, 2024. This rule requires candidates to have studied or resided in the state for at least four consecutive academic years prior to admission to be considered local candidates.
Petitioners have contended that the rule is arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. They also pointed out division bench rulings, dated August 29, 2023, and September 5, 2024, which held that the four-year study/residency requirement lacked a rational nexus with the objective of the 2017 Rules.
In Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & others vs state of Telangana, the high court had already interpreted Rule 3(a) to include students domiciled or permanently residing in Telangana, even if they have not studied in the state for four years. The court also noted that the government had failed to frame rules or guidelines to determine domicile or permanent residence status, despite being granted liberty to do so.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Govt engages Tata Tech to upgrade state polytechnics
Lucknow: The UP govt in collaboration with Tata Technology Limited (TTL) would set up Tata Technology Excellence Centres in 121 govt polytechnics across the state to help these technical educational institutes meet industry requirements. In a govt order (GO), additional chief secretary, technical education, Narendra Bhooshan said the decision was taken to bridge the industry-academia gap prevalent in the diploma sector of technical education. "In polytechnics, some topics have become irrelevant or are not in accordance with industry requirements. These centres will upgrade them and bridged the industry-academia gap," Bhooshan said. For this, Rs 57.3 crore will be spent on installation of machines and equipment in each of the 121 polytechnics. Of the total Rs 6935.8 crore, 87%, that is, Rs 6034.2 crore, will be borne by TTL, and the remaining 13% (Rs 1063.9 crore) by the govt. Also, the state govt will spend an additional Rs 858 crore – Rs 709.2 lakh per institution – towards civil infrastructure and other basic facilities. In the first phase, 45 polytechnic institutions will be upgraded. The project is aimed at providing quality technical education to students studying in the diploma sector of the state, thereby enhancing employment. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like How Retirees Can Potentially Minimize RMD Taxes SmartAsset Learn More Undo It will also help students acquire essential skills like soft skills and personality development as per industry requirements. As per the GO, TTL will involve global partner companies and institutions in upgrading the polytechnics. TTL will also prepare the project document related to the execution of the upgradation work and determine short, medium, and long-term strategies in it. In addition, they will prepare a baseline study report related to the status of the polytechnic institutions before the implementation of the project. TTL will also make available two trainers for the first two years and one trainer for the third year in each selected institute from its own sources. Besides, it will ensure the availability of training material, an online platform for training, and experts from industries as per demand in all 121 institutes and organise dialogue programmes at regular intervals.
The Print
4 hours ago
- The Print
UP state tax dept's deputy commissioner suspended in sexual harassment case
The official order issued by the department on Tuesday stated that Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Deputy Commissioner (State Tax), Mathura Division-1, has been suspended after being found prima facie guilty of repeated attempts to sexually exploit a subordinate officer. Lucknow, Aug 6 (PTI) A deputy commissioner of the Uttar Pradesh State Tax Department has been suspended in connection with a sexual harassment case, officials said on Wednesday. The suspension has been issued under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 7 of the same rules have also been initiated against him. During the suspension period, Pandey has been attached to the office of the Joint Commissioner (Executive), State Tax, Banda, according to the order. The role of six other officials, who were part of the anti-sexual harassment committee probing the matter, remains under inquiry for allegedly trying to hush up the matter, according to an official. Special Secretary of the State Tax Department, Kritika Jyotsna, has been appointed as the inquiry officer to investigate the allegations against Pandey, the order stated. PTI KIS NB NB This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Business Standard
Supreme Court pulls up states, discoms; sets April 2028 dues deadline
The Supreme Court ordered on Tuesday that electricity distribution companies must liquidate all their pending 'regulatory assets' by April 1, 2028. A two-judge apex court Bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta also held that fresh regulatory assets created by distribution companies (discoms) should be liquidated within three years of their creation. 'Regulatory commissions must provide the trajectory and road map for liquidation of the existing regulatory asset, which will include a provision for dealing with carrying costs. Regulatory commissions must also undertake strict and intensive audits of the circumstances in which the discoms have continued without recovery of the regulatory asset,' the apex court said in its judgment. A regulatory asset is an intangible asset created by electricity discoms to account for the gap between the price at which they purchase power and the price at which they sell it to customers, due to discounts or electricity bill waivers provided by the respective state governments. For accounting purposes, discoms treat regulatory assets as receivables from state governments over a future period. This portion of the revenue requirement is not included while determining the electricity tariff for that particular year. The top court was hearing pleas and appeals filed by BSES Rajdhani Power (BRPL), BSES Yamuna Power (BYPL), and Tata Power Delhi Distribution, which had challenged the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission's (DERC's) tariff-setting practices. The regulatory asset burden across the three Delhi discoms stood at a staggering ~27,200 crore, including carrying costs, until 2020–21. Regulatory commissions must undertake joint and collaborative efforts with other authorities to enable access to electricity across urban and rural areas and improve affordability through tariff rationalisation, the court said. 'The statutory authorities must work in cohesion towards a common goal of ensuring supply of electricity across regions and terrains, and cheaper and affordable...,' the court said. Regulatory asset not statutory, but permissible The Bench also clarified that while the creation of regulatory assets is not a statutory mandate under the Electricity Act, 2003, it is a recognised regulatory mechanism designed to prevent sudden tariff shocks to consumers. However, it must be exercised sparingly and in strict compliance with the principles laid down under the Electricity Act, the National Tariff Policy of 2006 and 2016, and Rule 23 of the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024, the court said. 'Electricity is a public good,' the court observed, adding that regulatory commissions must balance consumer interests with the financial viability of power discoms. 'A disproportionate increase and long-pending regulatory assets depict a 'regulatory failure'. It has serious consequences for all stakeholders, and the ultimate burden falls on the consumer,' the court observed. Court faults DERC for delay, inaction The court found that DERC failed to comply with multiple statutory guidelines requiring that regulatory assets be created only in exceptional circumstances and recovered within three to seven years. The Commission's road map, submitted in 2014 and promising liquidation of the assets by 2020-21, was never implemented, the court said. Instead, the quantum of regulatory assets kept ballooning, driven by delayed true-ups, unrealistic tariff assumptions, unpaid government subsidies, and rising power purchase costs, the apex court observed. 'This creeping regulatory inaction has undermined investor confidence and the commercial viability of the distribution sector,' the court noted, adding that such prolonged revenue gaps go against the very objective of private sector participation envisioned under the Electricity Act. Other directions issued The Supreme Court also said that DERC should ensure that no further regulatory assets are created, except in extraordinary and clearly defined circumstances. It also asked the electricity regulatory commission to use mechanisms such as the deficit recovery surcharge, fuel adjustment charges, tariff rationalisation, and government subsidies to recover the gap between the amount paid by users and the amount owed to the discoms. Any surplus revenues should first be adjusted against existing regulatory assets, the court said. The court also reminded state governments of their constitutional obligation to ensure equitable electricity access. If states wish to grant subsidies, they must do so upfront and through budgetary allocations — not by forcing distribution companies to bear the burden, the court said. The two-judge Bench further stressed that the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024, particularly Rule 23, must now form the baseline for all regulatory commissions in handling tariff gaps. The court, however, clarified that it was not adjudicating individual liabilities or recoveries in this judgment. Appeals by BRPL and BYPL against earlier orders of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Aptel) remain pending and will be heard separately. However, the court reiterated that orders of the Aptel must be implemented unless stayed.
