Telangana High Court
WP/32245/2026 of Aroub Vs The State of Telangana on 24 September 2026
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.32245 OF 2026 (CNR No.HBHC010664462026) Dated: 24.09.2026 Between: Aroub, D/o. Shaik Abdul Rahman and another
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.32245 OF 2026
(CNR No.HBHC010664462026)
Dated: 24.09.2026
Between:
Aroub, D/o. Shaik Abdul Rahman and another … Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana,
Represented by its Principal Secretary 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:
Mr. L. Ram Singh, learned counsel appears for the petitioners.
Mr. R. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department appears for respondent No.1.
Mr. 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: “… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent in not considering the petitioner for counselling and admission into MBBS/BDS course under Management Quota “C” NRI Quota seat in ongoing phase or next phase of counselling for the academic year 2026-27 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to consider and include the name of the petitioner for admission into MBBS/BDS course under Management Quota “C” NRI Quota Seat for the academic year 2026-27 and 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 petitioners submits that the petitioners participated in the first phase of counselling under management quota–“B” category for admission into MBBS/BDS course, but did not secure a seat. The petitioners now want to consider their case under “C” category – NRI quota and therefore requested respondent No.2-University to permit them to upload the NRI documents that were received by them only after release of the final merit list, which was refused by respondent No.2-University. He submits that the petitioners preferred representations through e-mail to respondent No.2-University on 10.09.2026 to permit them to upload the NRI documents, but the same have not yet been considered. He further submits that respondent No.2-University be directed to decide the said representations in a time bound manner.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-University submits that the petitioners’ representations shall be dealt with by respondent No.2- University in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to decide the petitioners’ representations dated 10.09.2026 as per the grounds taken therein, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned order before the next counselling. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
__________________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J Date: 24.09.2026 MD