High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 09 TEL CK 4066

Vasamsetti Swathi vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

Telangana High Court, Hyderabad · Decided on 23 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Aparesh Kumar Singh, C.J · Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No.31964 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 308 words

ORDER:

Mr. D.S.Kishen, learned counsel appears for the petitioner. 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.

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“...issue directions, orders, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents, more particularly the 2 respondent, in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 20.09.2026 for consideration of her candidature for admission under Management Quota Category-C i.e., NRI Category for MBBS

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner failed to register herself under Management Quota ‘C’ NRI category for admission into MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2026-27 out of ignorance, as a result of which her online application reflected “Claiming NRI: No”. However, on coming to know about the same, she obtained required documents and preferred a representation before respondent No.2-University on 20.09.2026 to permit her to register under Management Quota ‘C’ 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 20.09.2026 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

__________________________________