REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram Appellant

V/S

State of Telangana Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SEAFORD COURT ESTATES LTD. V. ASHER [REFERRED TO]
D P JOSHI VS. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT [REFERRED TO]
M PENTIAH VS. MUDDALA VEERAMALLAPPA [REFERRED TO]
MINOR P RAJENDRANMISS NIRMALA DEVI; MISS NISTHARINI K M SATHAKATHULLA VS. STATE OF MADRAS:DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MINOR A PEERIAKARUPPAN SOBHA JOSEPH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI N VASUNDARA VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI N VASUNDARA VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
D N CHANCHALA USHA P BHASKAR RAMASUBRAMANYAM SETTY V V SOUDAMINI R JAYASHREE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP JAIN MISS REITA NIRANKARI MEENAKSHI ALKA AGGARWAL SHALINI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI MALIK VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D T C MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB [REFERRED TO]
ANANT MADAAN BHARATB DUA NANDITA KALRA SHALINIJAIN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
S GOPAL REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
B R ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPN VS. NILAYBHAI R THAKORE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DUDH NATH PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. INDSWIFT LABORATORIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
INDO SWISS TIME LIMITED VS. UMRAO [REFERRED TO]
KULBHUSHAN KUMAR AND CO VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. B. MAHADEVAIAH [REFERRED TO]
RAJDEEP GHOSH VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS [REFERRED TO]
TANVI BEHL VS. SHREY GOEL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, the issue with regard to validity of Rule 3(a) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (hereafter referred to as '2017 Rules') as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dtd. 19/7/2024, arises for consideration. The petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions claim to be permanent residents of the State of Telangana and seek a direction to treat them as local candidates for admission into MBBS and BDS Courses in the State of Telangana. Briefly stated the facts in different writ petitions are as under:

(2.) The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 14, as per the averments made in the writ petition, have studied in the State of Telangana all through. The aforesaid petitioners shifted to State of Andhra Pradesh as the institute therein was offering coaching for NEET examination exclusively.

(3.) The writ petition is conspicuously silent with regard to details of educational qualifications of the petitioners No.1 to 46. In the writ petition, it is also not stated whether the said writ petitioners are residents of State of Telangana.

Click here to view full judgment.

KALLURI NAGA NARASIMHA ABHIRAM Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address