Telangana High Court
WP/32090/2026 of SANIYA SULTHANA Vs The State of Telangana on 23 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.32090 OF 2026 (CNR No.HBHC010660192026) Dated: 23.09.2026 Between: Saniya Sulthana D/o. M.D. Afzaluddin …
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.32090 OF 2026
(CNR No.HBHC010660192026)
Dated: 23.09.2026
Between:
Saniya Sulthana D/o. M.D. Afzaluddin
… Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Health, Medical & 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:
Mr. D.S. Kishan, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Mr. T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, appears for respondent No.2.
2. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “...to issue directions, orders, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents, more particularly the 2nd respondent, in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 21.09.2026 for consideration of her candidature for admission under Management Quota Category-C i.e., NRI Category for MBBS Course for the Academic Year 2026-27, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation and permit the petitioner to be considered under Management Quota Category-C i.e., NRI Category in the present/next phase of counselling, subject to verification of eligibility and documents, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while submitting the online application, due to lack of awareness, the petitioner did not select
2
Category-C (NRI) option, and as such, in her online application, it reflected as “Claiming NRI: NO”. He submits that the petitioner, on coming to know about the same, preferred a representation before respondent No.2-University on 21.09.2026 to permit her to participate in the counselling process under the NRI category, but the same has not yet been considered. He further submitted that respondent No.2-University be directed to decide the said representation in a time bound manner.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-University submitted that the petitioner’s representation shall be dealt with by respondent No.2- University in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2-University to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 21.09.2026 as per the grounds taken in it and 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: 23.09.2026 MD