The panel was dealing with a writ plea filed by Dr V. Pravalika who completed her MBBS from ESIC Medical College, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, after securing admission through the ESIC IP quota in 2018, and underwent compulsory rotatory internship at the same institution between April 2023 and March 2024.
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin refused to grant relief to a postgraduate medical aspirant challenging the local candidate eligibility criteria prescribed in the NEET (PG) 2025–26 prospectus, solely on the ground of delay in approaching the court. The panel was dealing with a writ plea filed by Dr V. Pravalika who completed her MBBS from ESIC Medical College, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, after securing admission through the ESIC IP quota in 2018, and underwent compulsory rotatory internship at the same institution between April 2023 and March 2024. She appeared for NEET PG 2025, and secured an all-India rank of 60133. She challenged the prospectus issued by the KNR University of Health Sciences in September, insofar as it defined eligibility for local candidate under Explanation (b) of Rule VIII(ii) of the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021, as amended by GO dated October 28, 2024. The petitioner contended that the residence-based criterion violated Article 14 of the Constitution and was contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling. However, the panel noted that the petitioner approached the court after completion of the first round of counselling, despite being aware of her non-local status under the prospectus. The panel observed that candidates who were vigilant and approached the court at an earlier stage were granted interim protection, whereas belated challenges could not be entertained. Holding that the delay disentitled the petitioner from any relief, the panel refused to interfere at this stage.
HC dismisses writ on maintenance fee
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea challenging an order of the Cooperative Tribunal directing uniform collection of common area maintenance charges in a residential complex at Gandipet, Hyderabad. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by B.N.V. Ranjit and other residents of Prestige High Fields. The petitioners questioned the order of the Cooperative Tribunal which directed the Prestige High Fields Flat Owners Welfare and Maintenance Cooperative Society Limited to collect common area maintenance charges equally from all flat owners, irrespective of the size of the flats. The issue before the judge was whether common area maintenance charges should be levied on an equal basis or on the basis of square footage. The unofficial respondents, who approached the Cooperative Tribunal, contended that the society conducted a general body meeting without issuing notice to all residents and in violation of the bylaws. Counsel for the respondents contended that the writ plea was not maintainable as the petitioners lacked locus standi. It was contended that the impugned order of the Cooperative Tribunal was passed against the society and not against individual flat owners, and therefore individual members could not maintain the writ plea. The judge observed that the petitioners had no locus standi to maintain the writ plea and dismissed the same.
OGH medico seeks internship dues
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea alleging prolonged non-payment of internship stipend to a medical graduate who completed his compulsory rotatory internship at Osmania General Hospital. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Dr Siddharth Gilda, an MBBS student of the 2016 batch from Osmania Medical College. Counsel for the petitioner Pooja Gilda contended that the petitioner completed his internship at Osmania General Hospital from June 2021 to June 2022 without break, adverse remark, or disciplinary issue. While stipend was paid for part of the internship period, the stipend for six months from January 2022 to June 2022 was not released till date. The counsel contended that, as per the prevailing policy and established practice, medical interns are entitled to receive a monthly stipend for the duration of the internship. The petitioner was issued an official internship completion certificate by the institution, clearly evidencing successful completion of the mandatory training. Despite this, the stipend remains unpaid, counsel for the petitioner pointed out. The petitioner contended that he had been continuously following up with the concerned authorities since January 2023. However, no action was taken. The judge directed the Government Pleader to obtain instructions in the matter.
