Hyderabad: Telangana high court on Friday held that the state govt’s recent amendment reserving 85% of PG medical seats under the management quota for local candidates — leaving only 15% for the all-India quota — ‘shall not be applicable’ to admissions for the 2025-26 academic year in private, un-aided, minority and non-minority medical colleges. A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin said, “We are of the prima facie view that the amendment amounts to changing the rules of the game after the admission process began.”Without commenting on the other grounds of challenge at this stage, the bench directed the govt and Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences to file their counter-affidavits within four weeks. The petitioners will have two weeks thereafter to file their replies. The matter will be heard again on Jan 19, 2026. The court issued these directions while hearing petitions filed by aspirants from other states seeking admission to PG medical courses in Telangana under the management quota. The amendment to the Telangana Un-aided, Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Post Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2017, was notified on Nov 3 — after the admission process for PG seats had already begun in Oct. The petitioners argued that the change, said to be introduced ‘to purportedly harmonise regional preference with a national level opportunity,’ could not be brought in at this stage. They submitted that such a rule is barred by Supreme Court rulings and violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. “The apex court also held that residence-based reservations can be granted to MBBS courses at the undergraduate level but shall not be granted to PG courses which require higher levels of merit and competency,” counsels for the petitioners argued.The aspirants claimed that their chances of securing seats in the PG medical courses, even under management quota sub-category-1, would be ‘seriously prejudiced’ by the amendment and sought relief from the court.
