The Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that the ‘local candidate’ reservation under the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974, applies equally to both in-service and non-service candidates in PG Medical admissions; the State cannot create an exception for in-service medical candidates based on recruitment definitions. The Court upholds the existing legal position without overruling or modifying precedent, confirming binding authority for subordinate courts and future admissions-related litigation in the state health/medical education sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/28647/2025 of Dr. Munjeti Pavani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, CNR APHC010555992025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | R. Raghunandan Rao, J. (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, C.J. (Concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; reaffirms application of Presidential Order in medical admissions. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms applicability of the Presidential Order, 1974; refuses to extend deviations from prior recruitment notifications. |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law, Educational Law, Medical Education Admissions, Service Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether in-service candidates seeking reservation to PG medical courses under state quota can be exempted from the ‘local candidate’ requirement prescribed by the Presidential Order, 1974, based on the definition of ‘local candidate’ used in recruitment notifications for medical services. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that the ‘local candidate’ requirement as defined under the Presidential Order, 1974, and reflected in the PG medical admission notifications, applies equally to both in-service and non-service candidates. The Court clarified that any deviations made at the time of appointment or recruitment for medical services do not create a precedent or entitlement for exemption in later educational admissions. It was further held that the notification regarding in-service reservation does not envisage splitting candidates into groups exempt from the local candidate rule, and the statutory framework does not permit such an exception for in-service candidates. The Court also found no support for the argument that service-based reservation is carved out from the purview of the Presidential Order by virtue of Supreme Court precedent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Others. Vs. Union of India & Others (2011) 6 SCC 568 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on the scheme of the Presidential Order, the wording of the PG Medical admissions notification, and precedents regarding interpretation of local candidate definitions. The 2011 Supreme Court ruling on in-service reservations was cited but found not to create an exemption to the local candidate requirement. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners were in-service medical professionals in Andhra Pradesh, educated up to Intermediate within the state but completed MBBS elsewhere, seeking admission under the in-service quota of the state PG medical admissions for 2025-2026. They challenged the application of the Presidential Order’s ‘local candidate’ definition to their cases and argued that their recruitment as local area candidates for government service should suffice for educational admissions. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Andhra Pradesh; binding for future admission cycles conducted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in interpretation of the scope of ‘local candidate’ rules for in-service medical admissions |
| Follows | Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Others. Vs. Union of India & Others (2011) 6 SCC 568 (with distinction) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reaffirmed that any deviation from the Presidential Order’s ‘local candidate’ definition at the time of government recruitment for medical services does not entitle in-service candidates to educational admission benefits that contravene the Order.
- Legal practitioners must note: in-service reservation does not create a special category outside the local/non-local framework for PG medical admissions within Andhra Pradesh.
- Citing recruitment notifications with broader local candidate definitions will not succeed in bypassing the Presidential Order definition for admissions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The core issue was whether in-service candidates (already serving in the State and selected as local area candidates for employment) could use the local area definition from their service recruitment—not the Presidential Order—for PG medical admission reservation.
- The Court analyzed the Presidential Order, 1974, and concluded its definition of ‘local candidate’ is explicit and has mandatory application for admissions to educational institutions, including PG medical courses.
- It found that while recruitment notifications for Civil Assistant Surgeons deviated from the Presidential Order’s definition, such deviations do not set a precedent or confer entitlement to use the same definition for subsequent admissions.
- The Court rejected the argument that the in-service quota, supported by the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers’ Association case (2011), stands outside the purview of the Presidential Order. That Supreme Court precedent supports in-service reservation, subject to prevailing legal framework of the State, and does not authorize exclusion from the Presidential Order’s operation.
- The admissions notification for PG courses did not draw a distinction or create a separate category for in-service candidates as regards local status; hence, all applicants—whether in-service or not—must satisfy the local candidate requirement.
- The original definition and scheme as per the notification, reinforced by reference to the Presidential Order, must be strictly followed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The in-service quota is a distinct category within the State quota and the Presidential Order should not apply to this reservation.
- Petitioners, as in-service medical professionals serving in Andhra Pradesh, have been selected as local area candidates for service appointments, and should be regarded as local candidates for PG admissions.
- Differing definitions of ‘local candidate’ at the time of recruitment and for PG admissions are impermissible; the same standard should apply.
- Reliance placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association case to support a distinct in-service quota outside the purview of local/non-local reservations.
Respondent (State and University)
- The admissions notification and the Presidential Order expressly require that all candidates, including in-service applicants, comply with the stipulated definition of local candidate.
- No legal basis exists to exempt in-service medical staff from the local candidate reservation framework stipulated for educational admissions.
Factual Background
The petitioners are medical professionals working in Andhra Pradesh’s State medical services. They had studied up to Intermediate in Andhra Pradesh but obtained their MBBS degrees from outside the State or abroad. Having cleared the NEET-PG 2025-2026 examination, they applied for PG medical admissions under the in-service quota. Their grievance arose from the authorities’ application of the Presidential Order, 1974—which requires four years of study in the State prior to the qualifying examination—to all candidates (including in-service), resulting in their exclusion from the local candidate reservation. They challenged the use of this definition, pointing instead to the looser definition used for their recruitment as Civil Assistant Surgeons.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment closely analyzes the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974 (“Presidential Order”), particularly its definition and requirements for ‘local candidate’ status.
- The admissions notification dated 18.09.2025 implements the same definition, requiring a minimum of four years’ study in the relevant area before the qualifying examination (MBBS) to claim local candidate status.
- The Court notes that deviations in previous recruitment notifications (e.g., Notification No.4 of 2022) do not conform to the Presidential Order and cannot create exceptions in the statutory admission scheme.
- Neither the notification nor G.O.Ms. referenced for in-service quota reservation seek to change or dilute the requirement of the Presidential Order for PG medical admissions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Both judges were in agreement; there is no dissenting opinion. The order was delivered per R. Raghunandan Rao, J., with Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur concurring.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines emerge from this judgment; the Court applied established principles governing statutory interpretation and the relative precedence of central orders over administrative deviations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court strictly followed and reaffirmed the established law regarding the applicability of the ‘local candidate’ requirement under the Presidential Order, 1974, for admissions to educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh, including for in-service reservation in PG Medical admissions.