Admissions – Andhra Pradesh High Court Declines Interim Stay on Revised Medical Counselling Policy
Admissions –The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to grant interim relief against the state’s revised medical admissions counselling process, allowing the ongoing schedule for MBBS and BDS admissions to continue while seeking detailed explanations from the concerned authorities.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday declined to suspend the implementation of Government Order (GO) 102, which introduced a revised counselling mechanism for MBBS and BDS admissions. The updated policy allows candidates to submit fresh web options before every counselling phase instead of relying on a single set of preferences throughout the admission process. Since the counselling exercise is set to begin shortly, the court decided against interrupting the schedule at this stage.
Court Finds No Immediate Grounds for Interim Intervention
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan observed that no student had personally approached the court claiming that the revised counselling framework had caused or was likely to cause direct prejudice. In the absence of any such representation from affected candidates, the Bench concluded that there was no justification for granting interim relief before the admissions process commenced.
While refusing to halt the implementation of the new system, the judges made it clear that the legal challenge would continue and that the issues raised in the petition would be examined during subsequent proceedings.
Notices Issued to State and University Authorities
The High Court directed several key authorities to respond to the petition by filing detailed counter-affidavits. Notices were issued to the Principal Secretaries of the Medical and Health Department and the Higher Education Department, along with the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of Dr. NTR Health University. The Competent Authority responsible for NEET-UG admissions was also asked to submit its response.
In addition, the Bench instructed university officials to provide a detailed explanation outlining the reasons behind the revised counselling process and the practical changes introduced through the new policy requiring candidates to submit web options before every counselling round.
Petition Questions Shift From Earlier Counselling Method
The public interest litigation was filed by BCYP president Bode Ramachandra Yadav, who challenged the validity of GO 102. According to the petition, the previous admission system established under GO 151 permitted candidates to exercise their web options only once, with those preferences remaining valid throughout the counselling process.
The petitioner argued that replacing the earlier mechanism without an extensive evaluation could have unintended consequences for admissions. It was contended that the revised procedure may reduce the chances of academically strong candidates from reserved categories securing seats under the open category, potentially affecting merit-based allocation.
University Defends Revised Admission Framework
Representing Dr. NTR Health University, counsel defended the government’s decision to introduce the updated counselling model. The university maintained that the changes were intended to improve the admission process and address issues that had emerged under the earlier system. According to the submissions made before the court, the revised approach was designed to strengthen merit-based admissions while ensuring a more efficient counselling process.
After hearing the preliminary arguments from both sides, the High Court decided not to interfere with the ongoing admission schedule. Instead, it directed the respondents to place their detailed stand on record before the next hearing. The matter has now been adjourned, and the court will consider the responses submitted by the state government and university authorities before taking up the case for further proceedings.