Why Should A Retired Judge Espouse Somebody Else's Cause: Supreme Court Questions PIL By Retired Andhra Pradesh High Court Judge
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition challenging the validity of certain provisions in Telangana’s postgraduate medical admission rules.

The Supreme Court, while hearing a writ petition related to Telangana’s postgraduate medical admission rules, questioned why a retired judge should espouse somebody else's cause. The Court added that if any candidate is aggrieved, the candidate can approach the Court.
The Court made these observations while considering a Writ Petition filed by retired Justice V. Eswaraiah challenging provisions governing the sliding mechanism for Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC) candidates in PG medical admissions.
Justice V. Eswaraiah was appointed an additional judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1999 and retired as its Acting Chief Justice in March 2013. He was the Chairperson of the National Commission for Backward Classes from September 2013 to September 2016.
While sharing the matter today, the Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran remarked, "Why should a retired Judge espouse the cause of somebody else? If any candidate is aggrieved, they can go there."
At the outset, Justice Gavai remarked, "The policy is in tune with the law laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India."
AOR Krishna Kumar Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the State of Telangana is not following it. He further submitted, "I will get instructions...Kindly accommodate for two weeks. I will be ready."
Accordingly, the Court adjourned the matter while stating that it was inclined to dismiss the matter and directed that the matter be listed high on the board.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition challenging the validity of certain provisions in Telangana’s postgraduate medical admission rules. The petition challenges Rule I(vii) and (viii) of G.O.Ms.No.43 (dated 13.03.2013) and Rule 7(vi) and (xi) of the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2017, issued under G.O.Ms.No.27 (dated 10.04.2017). The impugned rules regulate the sliding mechanism for meritorious reserved category (MRC) candidates in PG medical admissions.
About the Writ Petition
The petitioner contended that these rules impose unconstitutional restrictions on the movement of MRC candidates. As per the current regulations, an MRC candidate admitted under the open category can only slide into the same broad specialty at a different college, and the vacated seat is subsequently allotted to a candidate from the same reserved category. Additionally, when an MRC candidate slides into another broad specialty, the vacated seat is assigned to an open category candidate rather than a candidate from the reserved category. The petitioner argues that these provisions contravene the fundamental rights of reserved category candidates.
The petitioner relies on landmark judgments, including Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), where a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that reserved category candidates selected in the open competition should not be counted against the reserved quota. Further reliance is placed on Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Others (1996), which affirmed that meritorious reserved category candidates (MRCs) should be considered as open category candidates for computing reservation percentages.
The State of Andhra Pradesh had earlier implemented this principle through G.O.Rt No.550 (dated 30.07.2001), which introduced a system of sliding for MRC candidates. This was upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Koganti Jayakrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2001). However, subsequent changes in admission rules, notably G.O.Ms.No.43 (2013) and Telangana’s G.O.Ms.No.27 (2017), have imposed new restrictions, which the petitioner claims violate established legal precedents.
A key reference in the petition is Union of India v. Ramesh Ram & Others (2010), where a Constitution Bench held that seats vacated by MRC candidates in general quota should be allocated to general category candidates. However, the Supreme Court, in Samta Aandolan Samiti v. Union of India (2014), clarified that the Ramesh Ram ruling applied only to civil services and not to admissions in educational institutions, which are governed by the precedent set in Ritesh R. Sah.
The impugned rules in G.O.Ms.No.43 (2013) were previously struck down by a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dr. Dubbasi Praveen Kumar v. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences (2014) as unconstitutional and contrary to Supreme Court directives. However, the decision was later overturned by a Division Bench in 2015, which held that reservation in PG medical courses was specialty-specific, making the Ramesh Ram judgment applicable rather than Ritesh R. Sah. The Division Bench ruling was not appealed further, thereby allowing the disputed rules to remain in force.
The petitioner also highlighted disparities in national medical admissions, where different rules govern seat allocation under the All India Quota (AIQ). While OBC candidates receive 27% reservation in central institutions, such reservations do not extend to state government institutions under AIQ. Similar issues were raised in Tripurari Sharan v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav (2018), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Ritesh R. Sah governs admissions in medical institutions.
The petitioners argued that the rules in Telangana’s PG medical admissions violate the constitutional principles of equality and reservation. They sought a declaration that the impugned rules are arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to Supreme Court precedent, urging the Court to restore the sliding system that ensures MRC candidates can retain their rightful status in admissions without being restricted by specialty-based limitations.
Cause Title: Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 452/2019; Diary No. 12267/2019]