In a closely watched decision affecting hundreds of government doctors, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati on October 30, 2025, dismissed a writ petition filed by several in-service medical officers led by Dr. Munjeti Pavani. The doctors had challenged the state’s insistence on applying the 1974 Presidential Order for local reservations to the in-service quota in postgraduate (PG) medical admissions for the 2025–26 academic year.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, held that the Presidential Order’s definition of “local candidates” must apply uniformly to all categories, including in-service applicants.
Background
The petitioners, all serving doctors in the Andhra Pradesh Medical Services, had completed their MBBS degrees outside the state or abroad but later joined the state’s health department. They appeared for NEET-PG 2025 and sought admission under the in-service quota, which reserves 30% of clinical and 50% of non-clinical seats for government doctors under G.O.Ms. No.150 (2021) and its later amendments.
Their grievance arose when the Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, through its admission notification dated 18 September 2025, applied the 1974 Presidential Order’s local area restrictions to this quota as well. This meant that only doctors who had studied four consecutive years in Andhra Pradesh before qualifying for MBBS were eligible for 85% of seats reserved for local candidates.
The petitioners contended that the Presidential Order, designed to protect educational opportunities for local students, should not govern the in-service quota, as these doctors were already serving within the state’s medical system.
Petitioners Arguments
Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramesh Vishwanathula and Sri Nasaraiah Golla, argued that once doctors are recruited into state service, they should automatically be considered local candidates for further education. They highlighted that these in-service doctors had pledged to continue in government service for at least 10 years after completing their PG studies.
“The in-service quota is carved out specifically for those already working for the State,” their counsel emphasized during arguments. “Applying the Presidential Order here defeats the very objective of strengthening rural health infrastructure.”
The petitioners also pointed out inconsistencies in how the State defined “local candidate.” They cited the 2022 recruitment notification for Civil Assistant Surgeons, which treated anyone who studied four years up to the 10th standard in a local area as local - a definition, they said, now unfairly altered for PG admissions.
Respondents Stand
Representing the State, the Government Pleader for Medical and Health and Dr. NTR University’s Standing Counsel, Mrs. Tata Venkata Sridevi, defended the policy. They argued that the Presidential Order of 1974 had constitutional backing and was binding on all educational admissions within the State quota, including those reserved for in-service candidates.
“The rule of law must apply evenly,” the Bench noted, echoing the State’s position. “If the Presidential Order governs admission in one category, it cannot be arbitrarily excluded for another.”
Court’s Observations
Justice Raghunandan Rao, who authored the judgment, examined the interplay between government orders and the Presidential Order in detail. The Court observed that although earlier recruitment rules deviated from the 1974 standard, such deviations could not be extended indefinitely or used to bypass the constitutional mandate.
“The definition of a ‘local candidate’ under the Presidential Order is categorical,” the Bench stated. “Only candidates who studied for a minimum of four consecutive academic years prior to the qualifying MBBS examination within the local area can claim local status.”
On the petitioners’ reliance on the Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association vs. Union of India, the Court clarified that while that judgment upheld reservation for in-service doctors, it did not exempt them from complying with local area rules.
The judges also rejected the suggestion to treat in-service and non-service quotas separately under the 2025 notification. “We cannot split one notification into two distinct regimes,” Justice Rao observed. “The reservation for local candidates applies to all applicants, including in-service doctors.”
Decision
After considering all submissions, the Bench dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the Presidential Order of 1974 and the State’s 2025 admission notification were valid and binding.
“In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contentions of the petitioners,” the judgment concluded. “Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
With that, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that local area restrictions under the Presidential Order apply equally to in-service medical officers, thereby closing the door - at least for now - on a separate admission path for state doctors educated outside Andhra Pradesh.
Case Title: Dr. Munjeti Pavani & Others vs The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 28647 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 30 October 2025
Counsel for Petitioners:
- Sri Ramesh Vishwanathula
- Sri Nasaraiah Golla
Counsel for Respondents:
- Government Pleader for Medical, Health & Family Welfare (for State of Andhra Pradesh)
- Mrs. Tata Venkata Sridevi, Standing Counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences