Domicile Dispute: Supreme Court Hears Case on Telangana Rules Affecting CG Employees’ Wards
(By: Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi, September 16, 2025 — In a significant hearing that could impact thousands of aspirants seeking admission to medical courses in Telangana, the Supreme Court of India today addressed a plea challenging the state’s interpretation of domicile rules for children of Central Government employees.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the petition. The plea sought clarification on the Court’s earlier directions regarding the eligibility of children of State and Central Government employees for the local candidate quota in MBBS and BDS admissions in Telangana.
At the heart of the dispute lies the Telangana Domicile Rules of 2017, which mandate that a candidate must have studied four consecutive academic years in Telangana to qualify as a local candidate for professional courses. This rule has posed challenges for children of All India Services officers, PSU employees, and other Central Government staff, who are frequently transferred across states.
In 2024, the Telangana government proposed an amendment to address these concerns, but the Supreme Court upheld the original 2017 rules as amended, reinforcing the requirement of continuous study within the state.
The petitioner argued that the spirit of the Court’s previous judgments supports the inclusion of children of government employees—whether serving the state or the centre—as local residents, given the nature of their service and involuntary transfers. The plea emphasized the discriminatory impact of the current rules on children whose parents serve the nation but are denied domicile benefits due to administrative relocations.
The issue has gained urgency as it directly affects eligibility for medical and dental college admissions, where local quotas play a decisive role. With Telangana’s sanctioned seats heavily favouring local candidates, the exclusion of children of transferred government employees could significantly reduce their chances of securing admission.
While the bench acknowledged the complexity of balancing administrative rules with equitable access, it reaffirmed the validity of the 2017 domicile framework, as amended in 2024. The Court noted that any further relaxation or policy change would fall under the legislative and executive domain, though it left room for future review should substantial grounds emerge.
