Telangana High Court
WP/32682/2026 of Sukanya Singh Vs The State of Telangana on 29 September 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.32682 OF 2026
(CNR No.HBHC010671382026)
Dated:29.09.2026
Between:
Sukanya Singh,
D/o. Hemant Singh
… Petitioner
and
The State of Telangana
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Medical & Health Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another …Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Sri L.Ram Singh, learned counsel appears for the petitioner, through video conferencing.
Sri T.Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, appears for respondent No.1.
Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, appears for respondent No.2.
2. The Writ Petition has been preferred with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to exercise her web options for admission into MBBS and BDS courses under Management Quota “”B” and C” category for the academic year 2026-27 in the colleges affiliated to the 2nd respondent University in pursuance to the G.O.Ms.No.125 Rule (iii) which amended to the G.O.Ms.No.114 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner to exercise her web option for under Management Quota “B” and “C” category for admission into MBBS/BDS course in the next phase of counselling for the academic year 2026-27 in the colleges affiliated to the 2nd respondent University and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the first phase of counselling, the petitioner was undergoing treatment for Typhoid fever, but however when she attempted to exercise her web option under ‘B’ and ‘C’ categories, she did not receive the one time password (OTP) by the cut-off time i.e., 4:00 PM on 11.09.2026 for participating in the web based counselling for admission to MBBS/BDS course in the respondent-University under the notification, dated 04.08.2026 and as such she could not complete the process. Therefore, the petitioner addressed a mail to the respondent-University on 22.09.2026 seeking permission to exercise web option in second phase of counselling under “B” and “C” categories, but the same has not been considered. He further submits that the respondent-University be directed to decide the said representation in a time bound manner.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University has drawn our attention to G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 22.09.2022, specifically clause (iii) of Rule 4 of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, which provides as under: “(iii) KNRUHS will notify the merit list of eligible candidates after verification of certificates on the website. KNRUHS shall issue a notification on the website of the schedule for exercising web options by eligible candidates. University also is directed to issue press release besides web notification.”
5. We are of the opinion that if the candidate is unable to exercise web option on account of non-receipt of OTP before the cut-off time and date by which the web based counselling is closed, the aforesaid sub-rule would not be read to deny further opportunity to the candidate for participating in the web based counselling in any subsequent phase of counselling for the same year. However, in order to determine as to whether OTP was indeed issued by the service provider and delivered or not, the respondents are required to examine it with relevant electronic log obtained from the service provider while considering the petitioner’s representation. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 22.09.2026 in accordance with law and taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove within a period of four days.
6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
_________________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J Date: 29.09.2026 MD