Technical Glitches Cannot Deprive Candidates of Medical Admissions: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has ruled that procedural rules governing medical admissions must be interpreted flexibly to ensure that eligible students are not excluded from subsequent counseling phases due to electronic delivery errors beyond their control. The Bench emphasized that technical failures such as non-receipt of an OTP during web-based counseling cannot serve as a fatal barrier to a candidate's right to pursue medical education.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao presided over the matter, addressing a challenge against the exclusion of a candidate from the MBBS/BDS admission process under the Management Quota.

Key Takeaways

Electronic Integrity Over Rigidity

Technical glitches like OTP delivery failures should not lead to the permanent forfeiture of a seat if the candidate is otherwise eligible.

Due Diligence by Universities

Educational authorities are mandated to verify electronic logs from service providers to authenticate claims of technical failures made by candidates.

Flexible Interpretation of Admission Rules

Counseling rules are to be read as enabling provisions that do not necessarily bar candidates from subsequent phases if they missed earlier deadlines for bona fide technical reasons.

Interpretation of Admission Rules and Technical Failures

The dispute centered on the interpretation of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS / BDS Courses) Rules, 2017. The respondent-University had initially adhered to a strict timeline, which the petitioner claimed was impossible to meet due to a fever and the failure of the service provider to deliver a One-Time Password (OTP) required for exercising web options.

Analysing the facts of the matter, the Telangana High Court suggested that “We are of the opinion that if the candidate is unable to exercise web option on account of non-receipt of OTP before the cut-off time and date by which the web based counselling is closed, the aforesaid sub-rule would not be read to deny further opportunity to the candidate for participating in the web based counselling in any subsequent phase of counselling for the same year.” The Bench further emphasized that the veracity of such technical claims must be objectively verified. It noted that in order to determine as to whether an OTP was indeed issued and delivered, the respondents must examine the relevant electronic logs obtained from the service provider.

Ratio

A candidate cannot be penalized or denied the opportunity to participate in subsequent phases of medical counseling solely on the grounds of failing to exercise options in an earlier phase due to technical delivery failures of an OTP, provided such claims are verified through electronic log audits. Rules governing the schedule of web options are not to be read as absolute prohibitory bars in cases of documented systemic failures.

Background

The petitioner had applied for admission into MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2026-27 under the Management Quota 'B' Category. During the first phase of counseling, the petitioner was unable to complete the web option process because she did not receive the mandatory OTP by the cut-off time. Despite addressing a representation to the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences on October 24, 2026, seeking permission to participate in the third phase of counseling, no action was taken by the authorities.

The University placed reliance on Rule 4(iii) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS / BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, which mandates the notification of schedules for exercising web options. The petitioner argued that the action of the respondents was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The Telangana High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing a time-bound consideration of the petitioner's grievance after verifying the electronic records of the OTP service provider.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.36179 of 2026
Case Title: Shaikh Masira Javed v. The State of Telangana and another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abdul Kabeer, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Nagarjuna Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader; Mr. T. Sharath, Standing Counsel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(TEL) 34911