Telangana High Court
Mgr Educational Society vs The State Of Telangana on 2 May, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
W.P. Nos. 23539, 23584, 23639, 23651, 23655, 23657, 23660,
23682, 23683 and 23685 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate General and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. M. Mehaboob Ali, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned Standing counsel for JNTU.
2. Lis involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same. Therefore, they were heard together and decided by way of this common order.
3. The Societies, the Colleges run by the Societies and Secretaries of the Societies are before this Court.
4. This is third round of litigation. To modify/enhance, intake of seats and merger of Courses, the petitioners submitted applications before All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and also Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University 2 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch (JNTU) Hyderabad. The same were considered and permissions were accorded permissions. Even then, respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 did not permit the petitioners from running its courses of B.Tech, CSE, with the additional intake on the basis of the merger of courses as approved by the AICTE. Therefore, petitioners filed writ petitions vide W.P.No.19291 of 2024 and batch. Vide order dated 19.07.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petitions directing respondents 1, 2, 4 and 6 to examine the case of the petitioners for increase in intake in the existing courses and also adjustment of seats in other Courses as approved by AICTE and JNTU and for inclusion of colleges in the counseling process for the Academic Year 2024-25. This Court also directed the said respondents to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
5. In compliance with the said order, respondents passed orders rejecting the request made by the petitioners for increase and intake and for merger of certain Courses for the Academic Year 2024-25.
3
KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
6. Challenging the said rejection, the petitioners and others filed writ petitions vide W.P.No.20468 of 2024 and batch. Vide common order dated 09.08.2024, this Court dismissed the said writ petitions. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said common order, the petitioners and others preferred intra-court appeal vide W.A.No.953 of 2024 and batch. Vide common judgment, dated 13.08.2024, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeals by setting aside the impugned rejection orders therein and also common order dated 09.08.2024 of learned Single Judge. Division Bench directed the Higher Education Department to consider claim of each of the appellants and take a decision in accordance with law expeditiously. Division Bench also directed respondents therein to take a fresh decision on the claims of the appellants in accordance with law and for that purpose, if necessary, time table/schedule of counseling may be appropriately modified so that a meaningful consideration of each of the appellants' claim takes place. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits, Division Bench disposed of writ appeals with the aforesaid directions.
4
KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
7. In compliance with the said judgment, vide order dated 23.08.2024 and 24.08.2024, 1st respondent rejected the request made by the petitioners. Challenging the said impugned orders, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.
8. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions contending that vide common judgment dated 13.08.2024 in W.A.No.953 of 2024, Division Bench of this Court directed respondents therein to take a fresh decision on the claims of the appellants in accordance with law. They have not considered the claims properly and rejected the claims without assigning reasons properly. In the aforesaid common judgment, this Court held that in the absence of reasons, conclusions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Even then, respondents did not give conclusions properly. They have not exercised their power under Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act') properly. There is discrimination. Respondent No.1 is under obligation to act fairly without ill-will or malice in fact or in law. The action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the increase in intake in petitioners institutions has been undertaken due to the fact that the petitioners institutions and Societies have 5 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch members who are connected to the previous government in the State. Such an exercise has been undertaken by respondent No.1 in relation to the only such institutions whose members had political affiliations with the previous government. Thus, only such institutions are being singled out and denied the rights which have been granted to the other institutions and such an action is completely arbitrary and illegal and would fall within the ambit of legal malice.
9. Thus, the action of 1st respondent in rejecting the claims made by the petitioners is discriminative and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 1st respondent cannot take different stands to reject the claims of the petitioners. Therefore, the said action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the claims of the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. 1st respondent failed to consider that there will not be any financial implication on the 1st respondent. In the impugned rejection order, 1st respondent failed to consider that the AICTE and JNTU have already accorded permissions on conducting of 6 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch inspections. They have conducted inspection of the sites. Even then, 1st respondent rejected the claims of the petitioners.
11. The reasons assigned by the 1st respondent in the impugned orders including the data mentioned in the Annexures are contrary to record and action of the 1st respondent is arbitrary. With the said submissions, the petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order and a direction to respondents to treat the petitioners institutions as validly permitted, affiliated and approved institutions for the Academic year 2024-25 for all the courses of the colleges including adjusting intake of seats in the courses of B.Tech, CSC as sanctioned and approved by AICTE and JNTU for the said Academic Year. They also sought for permission to fill up the seats for the Academic Year 2024 - 25 or by permitting the petitioners to fill up seats by way of spot admissions.
12. 2nd respondent has filed counter contending that in compliance with the common judgment dated 13.08.2024 in W.A.No.953 of 2024 and batch, respondents 1 and 2 have considered all the aspects and rejected the claims of the petitioners. 1st respondent has examined cases of the petitioners separately and 7 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch considered all the aspects including the permission accorded by AICTE and JNTU. They have rejected the claims of the petitioners by specifically assigning reasons. There is no error in the same. There is no arbitrariness. 1st respondent never shown any illegal malice and 1st respondent is nothing to do with the political affiliations of the members of the said societies. With the said submissions, 1st respondent sought to dismiss all the writ petitions.
13. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, learned Advocate General and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Govt.Pleader made their submissions extensively.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court, in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar vs. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet1, East Coast Railway vs. Mahadev Appa Rao 2, E.P.Rayappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu3.
1 (2019) 17 SCC 729 2 (2010) 7 SCC 678 3 (1974) 4 SCC 3 8 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
15. Whereas, learned Advocate General placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University vs. Crescent Educational Society 4, and also Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra) and A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University vs. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology 5.
16. In Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra), the Apex Court discussed the scope of power of State Government under Section 20 of the Act. Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 are relevant and the same are extracted below:-
14. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section 20(1) makes it clear that the survey is conducted so as to identify the educational needs of the locality would definitely include within its ken how many institutions are operating in the area and whether there is any further requirement of opening educational institutions/new courses in existing colleges, and it is also imperative under Section 20(3)(a)(i) that educational agency has to satisfy the authority that there is a need for providing educational facilities to the people g in the locality. In case there are already a large number of institutions imparting education in the area the competent authority may be justified not to grant the NOC.
for permitting an institution to come up in the area. 4 (2021) 16 SCC 165 5 (2021) 2 SCC 564 9 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
15. The provisions contained in Section 20 are wholesome and intend not only to cater to the educational needs of the area but also prevent the mushroom growth of the institutions/courses. In case institutions are permitted to run each and every course that may affect the very standard of education and may ultimately result in sub-standard education. There is already a paucity of well-qualified teachers in a large number of institutions and the available seats in Pharmacy course in Hyderabad City are remaining vacant every year in spite of the reduction in a number of seats. It had not been possible to fill up the available vacancies due to non-availability of students. Thus, it is apparent that when 30 institutions in Hyderabad City are already running Pharmacy course) the refusal to grant NOC by the University was wholly justified.
17. In the said judgment, the Apex Court also considered regulations 5.2 and 5.3 of AICTE Regulations, which say that a new college proposing to offer technical education with the University affiliation shall first seek an NOC from the University before applying to AICTE/ PCI/ any other statutory body. Regulation 5.3 provides that the permission for starting of new programmes in the existing colleges shall be considered by the University as per the priority/policy of the State Government if any.
18. In the said judgment, moratorium imposed by the State Government fell for consideration. In paragraph Nos.26 and 27, Apex Court held:-
10
KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
26. The decision taken by the State Government to impose a moratorium as apparent from facts reflected in perspective plan is based on a survey and supported by the data. Considering the fact that seats are going abegging even In 2017-2018 in the Pharmacy course, data has been given in the SLP That among 56 colleges affiliated to the University, 30 were in the city of Hyderabad and out of total 1630 seats, 173 had remained vacant. Thus, it is apparent that a farge number of seats remained vacant. Not more than 30 seats can be allotted to one institution. In the circumstances, the observation of the High Court that It was for the institution to worry and consider the viability and it was not for the University or State Government to take the same into consideration, is completely a flimsy and impermissible reason employed. The mushroom growth of educational institutions cannot be permitted. The observation made by the High Court that unfit institution will automatically shut down the courses is not the judicious approach warranted in such matters. It is not only that the requirement of the locality should exist but it has to be ensured that only the standard educational institutions should come up and once they come up, they should be able to survive.
27. A large number of institutions are not to be opened up to die an unnatural death on the principle of survival of the fittest and due to non-
availability of teachers/students. Standard of education cannot be compromised and sacrificed by permitting institutions to come up in a reckless manner without there being any requirement for them at a particular place. There is a need to strengthen the existing system of education not to make it weak by further complicating the issues by wholly unwarranted approach as the one adopted by the High Court. It cannot be left at the choice of the institution to open the course whenever or wherever they desire. The High Court has also erred in observing that the seats remaining vacant could not be the relevant criteria for refusal of NOC.
19. Paragraphs No.34 and 35 of the said judgment are also relevant, the same are extracted below:-
34. The provisions contained in Section 20 of the 1982 Act involved in the instant case are different and its validity vis-a-vis to the AICTE Act has already been upheld by this Court. Apart from that, it has not been pointed out that in the exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Central 11 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch Act, norms have been fixed by AICTE as to how many colleges should function at a particular city/place. Definitely the State Government and the University, in the absence of any such norms/rules having been framed by AICTE can always have their say as per applicable statutory provisions or policy. In the instant case, Section 20 of the 1982 Act, enables universities to grant no-objection certificate after considering the local requirement and as no guidelines in this regard have been framed by AICTE, it cannot be said to be an exercise of power against the norms fixed by AICTE Consequently, no repugnancy arises. The mushroom growth of the Institutions cannot be permitted, was rightly pointed out in the perspective plan. A large number of institutions have already been permitted to function in the State by the Central bodies. It is painful to note that at several places mushroom growth of the institutions had been permitted by such bodies in an illegal manner. In case there is no check or balance and the power is exercised in an unbridled reckless manner, the sufferer is going to be the standard of education. At the same time, there is a necessity of good institutions with new technology. but at the same time mushroom growth of the sub-standard institutions cannot be permitted. There has to be a requirement of educational institutions in the locality and that is one of the main considerations
35. The counsel appearing for the respondents were not able to point out any of the provisions in the AICTE Act and rules for adjudging requirement of the locality have been framed by the Council. In the absence of guidelines or norms framed to check the mushroom growth of the institutions, the university cannot be deprived of considering the said aspect. The State Government had also sent a communication to AICTE regarding the alarming increase in the number of technical educational institutions in the area in question and imbalanced growth. The decision of the State has been taken in an objective manner and the same is based 12 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch based on the consideration of data and could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary in any manner whatsoever. The policy decision of the State Government cannot be said to be illegal and on that basis, the University has taken the decision in terms of Section 20 of the 1982 Act.
20. In the light of the same, it is relevant to note that the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petitions to declare Section 20 of the Act, as ultra vires. Initially matters were listed before the Division Bench. On consideration of the said principle, vide order dated 04.09.2024 in W.P.No.23539 of 2024 and batch, Division Bench held that the validity of Section 20 of the Act, was previously challenged and has been upheld by Apex Court in Government of AP vs. J.B.Educational Society 6. Once the validity of a provision is upheld by Apex Court, all grounds must be presumed to have been considered b the Court and fresh litigation challenging the validity of the same provision on some additional grounds would be barred by principle of res judicata as held by the Apex Court in Kesho Ram and Company vs. Union 6 2005 (3) SCC 211 13 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch of India 7. Thus, with the said findings, Division Bench directed the registry to list the matters before Single Judge.
21. In Crescent Educational Society (supra), the Apex Court referring to 5.5, 5.6, 6.1 of AICTE Regulations, held that for starting new courses/increase in intake/Change of Site/Location of the existing College/Institute, prior permission from the State Government is mandatory.
22. In A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University (supra), Apex Court held that the stand taken by the AICTE supporting the case of college is unwarranted.
23. In East Coast Railway (supra), Apex Court considered scope of arbitrariness, in paragraph No.23 held:-
23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained.
Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the 7 1989 (3) SCC 151 14 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable.
24. In E.P.Rayappa (supra) with regard to the equality, the Apex Court held as follows:-
"Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Art. 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Art. 16. Arts. 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action an( ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valent relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would :amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Arts. 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of Power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice : in fact the matter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Arts. 14 and 16.
25. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judgments is that the State has power to accord permissions to start new institutions, 15 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch increase in intake and merger of courses etc., in terms of Section 20 of the Act. The State has to consider several aspects while according permission or rejecting the same.
26. As discussed supra, in the first phase of litigation, 1st respondent has rejected the claims made by the petitioners on the following grounds:-
8. Further, the issue of the merger of courses/institutions/increase in intakes, notwithstanding the AICTE approvals that have been obtained merely on the basis of online applications by way of only self-disclosure made by the petitioner colleges, needs to be looked in the broad perspective of the availability of infrastructure, maintenance of teaching standards at the petitioner colleges and the said matter does not limit alone to the financial implications involved (by way of re-imbursement of tuition fee to the admitted students) in granting increase in intakes by the petitioner colleges
9. That, the issue of merger of courses/institutions intakes at the petitioner colleges is a policy matter, irrespective of the colleges readiness to run the said Courses."
27. Challenging the said rejection orders, the petitioners filed writ petitions. Vide order dated 05.09.2024, this Court dismissed interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions holding that the interim relief and main relief sought by the petitioners is one and the same and also the admission 16 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch schedule. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, petitioners preferred intra court appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. Vide W.A.No.1062 of 2024 and batch. Vide common judgment, dated 09.09.2024, Division Bench allowed the said writ appeals, while setting aside the aforesaid order of Single Judge, Division Bench directed the respondents to conduct a mop up round of counseling in respect of increased intake of capacity in the seats available in the institutions of the petitioners. In the mop up round of counseling, it shall clearly be notified that the aforesaid exercise is being taken up in pursuant of the orders passed by this Court and the admission of the students against such courses shall be subject to outcome of the orders which may be passed in W.P.No.23539 of 2024 and batch. Division Bench also directed the respondents to file counter affidavits within two weeks and requested the learned Single Judge to deal with the writ petitions expeditiously.
28. However, Division Bench has clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and any observations/findings made in the judgment have been made only for the purposes of deciding these appeals and shall have no bearing 17 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch on the merits of the matters pending before the learned Single Judge.
29. Challenging the said order, State has approached Apex Court by way of filing Special Leave Petitions and vide order dated 20.09.2024, Apex Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petitions.
30. Thereafter, petitioners filed contempt cases alleging willful and deliberate violation of judgment dated 09.09.2024 in W.A.No.1602 of 2024 and batch. Vide order dated 21.10.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.C.No.2046 of 2024 and batch, considering the fact that 23.10.2024 is the last date for admission to the technical courses for the A.Y. 2024-25 as fixed by Apex Court, Division Bench permitted the petitioners to fill up the seats which are lying vacant on account of increased intake capacity, which has been approved by the AICTE subject to the condition that the petitioners shall not charge any capitation fee from the students.
31. Thereafter, vide common order dated 09.06.2024, this Court dismissed the said writ petitions.
32. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners preferred intra-court appeals vide W.A.No.953 of 2024 18 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch and batch under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. Vide common judgment, dated 13.08.2024, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Appeals setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that in the impugned orders, there are no reasons. Therefore, in the absence of reasons, conclusions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Division Bench further held that paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the impugned order makes it clear that financial implication is not the only parameter and other parameters needs to be looked into such as infrastructure, maintenance of teaching standards at the Petitioner Colleges etc. The specific claim of the each of the petitioner was nowhere discussed and analyzed on those aspects. Reasons mentioned in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 are only about proposed parameters each required to be decided. The same was not done in the present case. Thus, on the said grounds, the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also rejection orders of the Higher Education Department. Division Bench directed the Higher Education Department to consider the claims of each of the petitioners and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. 19
KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
33. In compliance with the said judgment, vide impugned order dated 24.08.2024, 1st respondent has rejected the claims of the petitioners on the following grounds:-
2. Regarding the request for merger of courses/increase in intakes of B.Tech. in CSE for the Academic Year 2024-25, the following admission statistics after Final Phase of TGEAPCET-2024 admissions, which are appended to this order, are relevant to be noted:-
Annexure-I: The Approved Intakes and Admission Details in B.Tech in CSE at CMR. College of Engg & Tech., Kandiakoya (V) Medchal- Malkajgiri District for the Α.Υ.2024-25.
Annexure-II: The available vacancy position in B.Tech in CSE in Private Engineering Colleges in Kandlakoya locality.
Annexure-III: The available vacancy position in B.Tech in CSE in Private Engineering Colleges located in Medchal Malkajgiri District.
3. As seen from the data of Admission Statistics of TGEAPCET-2024, before the internal sliding process as on dated 20-08-2024 in the above Annexures, it is clear that there still are vacancies in respect of the courses for which increase is sought by the Appellant College, in the Colleges located in Kandlakoya locality and in the Colleges located in Medchal Malkajgiri District wherein the Appellant College is located.
Therefore, there is no discernible need to sanction for merger of courses/increase in intake of B.Tech in CSE at this juncture.
4. The Appellant College has also not furnished proof of the need for merger of courses/increase in intakes of B.Tech in CSE for the Academic Year 2024-25 in connection with the requirement of the 20 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch educational needs of the people in the locality. Further, reduction of intakes in core branches is not in tune with the policy of the Government.
5. Therefore, the proposed merger of courses/increase in intakes of B.Tech in CSE, for the Academic year 2024-25 is not feasible for consideration.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the request of CMR College of Engg & Tech., Kandlakoya (V), Medchal-Malkajgiri District for merger of courses/increase in intakes of B.Tech in CSE, is hereby rejected. Annexure-I: Statement showing the approved intakes and admission details in respect of CMR college of engineering and Technology, Kandlakoya, Medchal
- Malkajgiri District (H.5) for the A.Y.2024-25 as on 20.08.2024 (Affiliated to JNTU).
S Branch AICTE Appro- Conve Allot- Repor- Vac- Rem-
Code ved ed ant arks
No Intake Intake Nor Ted
AY AY Intake
2024-
25 2024- AY
25 2024-
25
1 CIV 30 30 23 23 20 3
2 CSD 180 180 139 139 133 6
3 CSE 750 420 324 324 320 4
4 CSM 360 360 277 277 274 3
5 ECE 120 120 92 92 91 1
6 EEE 30 30 23 23 23 0
7 MEC 30 30 23 23 19 4
Total 1500 1170 901 901 880 21
21
KL,J
WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
Annexure-II: Statement showing the approved intakes and admission details of CSE Branch in the location of Kandlakoya for the A.Y.2024-25 as on 20.08.2024.
S JN Name of the AICTE Appro- Conve Allot- Rep Vac Rem-
TU institution ed
No Intake ved Nor or ant arks
Co
de AY Intake Intake Ted
2024-25 AY AY
2024-
2024-25 25
1 95 INSTITUTE OF 900 420 323 323 315 8
AERONAU-
TICAL
ENGINEER-
ING
2 7R CMR 840 420 323 323 305 18
TECHNICAL
CAMPUS
3 7Y MARRI 900 270 209 209 201 8
LAKSHMAN
REDDY
INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
AND
MANAGE-
MENT
4 8R CMR ENGG 840 420 323 323 308 15
COLLEGE
5 H5 C M R 900 270 209 209 201 8
COLLEGE OF
ENGG AND
TECHNOLOGY
6 J4 MALLA- 720 480 370 370 358 12
REDDY
ENGINEERING
COLLEGE
7 K8 ST MARTINS 600 240 184 184 178 6
ENGINEERING
COLLEGE
8 N3 MALLAREDD 1620 420 323 323 313 10
Y COLLEGE
OF ENGG
TECHNOLOGY
22
KL,J
WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
9 Q9 MALLA 600 360 277 277 250 27
REDDY
COLLEGE OF
ENGINEER-
ING
10 R0 CMR 600 420 323 323 323 0
INSTITUTE OF
TECHNO-
LOGY
11 R2 MLR 840 420 323 323 315 8
INSTITUTE
OF TECHNO-
LOGY
12 R MALLA 420 240 185 185 178 7
G REDDY
COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERIN
G FOR
WOMEN
13 R MALLAREDD 1260 660 508 508 499 9
H Y ENGG
COLLEGE
FOR WOMEN
14 X NARSIMHA 540 420 323 323 314 9
O REDDY
ENGINEERIN
G COLLEGE
Total 11430 5610 4318 4318 417 141
7
ANNEXURE III- STATEMENT SHOWING THE APPROVED INTAKES AND ADMISSION DETAILS OF CSE BRANCH IN RESPECT OF MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT FOR THE A.Y.2024-25 AS ON 20-08-2024.
S. JN INST- AICT APPR CONV ALLO REPO VAC REMA
No TU NAME E OVED ENER TED RTED ANT RKS
CO INTA INTA INTAK
DE KE A.Y.20 E A.Y.
A.Y.2 24-25 2024-
23
KL,J
WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
024- KE 25
25
8R CMR 840 420 323 323 308 15
ENGG
COLLEGE
15 AG ACE 480 420 323 323 309 14
ENGINEER
ING
COLLEGE
16 B6 NALLA 360 180 138 138 129 9
MALLA
REDDY
ENGINEER
ING
COLLEGE
17 BK ST. 420 420 323 323 311 12
PETERS
ENGINEER
ING
COLLEGE
18 C9 HOLY 420 300 231 231 189 42
MARY
INSTITU-
TE OF
TECH
SCIENCE
19 E5 HYDERAB 240 240 184 184 160 24
AD
INST OF
TECHNOL
OGY AND
MGIT
20 H5 CMR 750 420 324 324 320 4
COLLEGE
OF ENGG
AND
TECHNOL
OGY
21 J4 MALLA 720 480 370 370 358 12
REDDY
ENGINEER
ING
COLLEGE
22 K8 ST 600 240 184 184 178 6
MARTINS
ENGINEER
ING
COLLEGE
23 M9 AURORA 300 300 231 231 121 110
SCIENTI-
FIC AND
TECHNOL
OGICAL
24
KL,J
WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
INSTITU-
TE
24 N3 MALLA 1620 420 323 323 313 10
REDDY
COLLEGE
OF ENGG
TECHNOL
OGY
25 N7 DRK 300 300 231 231 179 52
INSTITU-
TE OF SCI
AND
TECNO-
LOGY
26 P6 VIGNAN 360 360 277 277 261 16
BHARATI
INSTITU-
TE OF
TECHNOL
OGY
27 Q9 MALLA 600 360 277 277 250 27
REDDY
COLLEGE
OF
ENGINEER
ING
28 R0 CMR 600 420 323 323 323 0
INSTITU-
TE OF
TECHNOL
OGY
29 R1 GEETAN- 480 480 369 369 355 14
JALI
COLLEGE
OF ENGG
AND
TECHNOL
OGY
30 R2 MLR 840 420 323 323 315 8
INSTITU-
TE OF
TECHNOL
OGY
31 RA KOMMURI 360 360 276 276 261 15
PRATAP
REDDY
INST OF
TECHNOL
OGY
32 RG MALLA 420 240 185 185 178 7
REDDY
COLLEGE
25
KL,J
WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
OF
ENGINEER
ING FOR
WOMEN
33 RH MALLA 1260 660 508 508 499 9
REDDY
ENGG
COLLEGE
FOR
WOMEN
34 RP MEGHA 180 180 138 138 127 11
INST OF
ENGG
AND
TECHNOL
OGY FOR
WOMEN
35 TQ SIDDARTH 240 240 184 184 172 12
A
INSTT OF
TECHNOL
OGY
36 U1 SAMSKRU 180 180 139 139 119 20
THI
COLLEGE
OF ENGG
AND
TECHNOL
OGY
37 UJ MALLA 180 180 139 139 116 23
REDDY
ENGINEER
ING
COLLEGE
AND
MANAGE
MENT
SCIENCES
38 UP VIGNANS 300 300 231 231 219 12
INST OF
MANAGE
MENT
AND TECH
FOR
WOMEN
39 VE SREYAS 300 300 231 231 219 12
ISNT OF
ENGG
AND
TECHNOL
OGY
40 W BVRIT 360 360 277 277 263 14
26
KL,J
WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
H COLLEGE
OF
ENGINEER
ING FOR
WOMEN
41 XO NARSIMH 540 420 323 323 314 9
A REDDY
ENGINEER
ING
COLLEGE
2067 14070 10825 10825 10151 674
TOTAL 0
34. In the aforesaid Annexures, 1st respondent has specifically mentioned the statement showing the approved intakes and admission details in respect of the Colleges.
35. Referring to the same, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the said statement furnished by 1st respondent along with the impugned order is factually incorrect. The same is contrary to the approval and NOC issued by AICTE and JNTU respectively, on conducting inspection.
36. There is no dispute that there is no financial implications on the 1st respondent for accepting request made by the petitioners. At the same time, 1st respondent has to consider other parameters such as infrastructure, maintenance of teaching standard in colleges 27 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch etc. 1st respondent has to conduct survey with regard to the same. 1st respondent is competent to conduct the said exercise and take a decision in terms of Section 20 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that mere issuance of NOC by JNTU and approval by AICTE does not restrict the State Government to exercise its powers under Section 20 of the Act. State government is having power to prevent mushroom growth of institutions/courses as held by Apex Court in Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra). At the same time, State government cannot show any discrimination against any college and State has to consider all the aspects including infrastructure, teaching faculty, number of institutions and courses, intake within the locality etc., in respect of all the colleges within the said locality.
37. In the present case, it is the specific contention of the petitioners that the State government has shown discrimination in respect of petitioners since the members of petitioner Society are affiliated to previous government. There is a specific assertion to the said effect in all the writ affidavits.
28
KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
38. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that in State of Bihar and others vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and others 8, Apex Court held as follows:-
The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals other cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh & Ors. v. NDMC & Ors. [1996 (2) SCC 459] held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed:
"Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination."
39. In State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. Dr.Rao V.B.J. Chelikani and others9, Apex Court held as follows:- 8
AIR 2000 SC 306 9 2024 INSC 824 29 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
55. Thus, it is crucial to recognise that the unreasonableness of a law, policy or state action can be both relative and absolute.
First, unreasonableness can be comparative, meaning it is assessed in relation to something else. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi 10, this Court stipulated that a policy in question must satisfy two requirements under the reasonable classification test- (a) the classification must be reasonable; and
(b) it must fulfil the twin conditions of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. Second, a policy may perpetrate discrimination inherently, instead of inter se discrimination vis- à-vis others. In A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., 11 this Court held that one need not confine the denial of equality to a comparative evaluation between two persons to arrive at a conclusion of discriminatory treatment. An action/policy can per se be arbitrary, and such arbitrariness in itself constitutes a violation of the equal of protection under law.
56. It follows that the rigours of Article 14 cannot be interpreted in a narrow, pedantic or lexicographical manner. 12 The doctrine of classification is neither a mere restatement of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. 13 In a catena of judgments, this Court has held that the reasonable classification doctrine is a judicial formula to assess whether legislative or executive actions are arbitrary, thus amounting to a denial of equality. 14 It is arbitrariness that lies at the heart of the reasonable classification test. The principle of reasonableness - 10 (1981) 1 SCC 722 11 (1984) 3 SCC 316, 328 12 Ibid 13 Natural Resources Allocation, in re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1 14 Ajay Hasia (supra) 30 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch both legally and philosophically - is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness, pervading Article 14 like a "brooding omnipresence". 15
57. In recent pronouncements, this Court has clearly expounded India's equality jurisprudence - from a reliance on the test of classification and arbitrariness to a more substantive interpretation of equality. For instance, A.K. Sikri J., in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India16 had referred to the relationship between equality and dignity. In Navtej Johar v Union of India,17 D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as his Lordship then was) explicitly articulated the principle of substantive equality and remarked:
"Equating the content of equality with the reasonableness of a classification on which a law is based advances the cause of legal formalism. The problem with the classification test is that what constitutes a reasonable classification is reduced to a mere formula: the quest for an intelligible differentia and the rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In doing so, the test of classification risks elevating form over substance. The danger inherent in legal formalism lies in its inability to lay threadbare the values which guide the process of judging constitutional rights. Legal formalism buries the life-giving forces of the Constitution under a mere mantra. What it ignores is that Article 14 contains a powerful statement of values - of the substance of equality before the law and the equal protection of laws. To reduce it to a formal exercise of classification may miss the true value of equality as a safeguard against arbitrariness in state action. As our constitutional jurisprudence has evolved towards recognizing the substantive content of liberty and equality, the core of Article 14 has emerged out of the shadows of classification. Article 14 has a substantive content on which, together with liberty and dignity, the edifice of the Constitution is built. Simply put, in that avatar, it reflects the quest for ensuring fair treatment of the individual in every aspect of human endeavor and in every facet of human existence."15
Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 16 (2014) 5 SCC 438 17 (2021) 15 SCC 125.
31
KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
40. It is also apt to note that in Cherabuddi Education Society and others vs. JNTU and others 18, Division Bench of this Court, had an occasion to deal with issue of additional intake of seats for the A.Y. 2022-23, the powers conferred on the State Government in terms of Section 20 of the Act, and held that State Government has power to consider all the aspects while permitting the institutions to grant permission for intake of courses and merger of courses.
41. Referring to the principle laid down by Apex Court in Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidhyapeet (supra), Division Bench held that the question relating to increase in seat intake or setting up of new courses/new colleges is an unoccupied field, unoccupied by any central legislation like the AICTE Act. In such a situation, it is certainly open to the State Government to have its say in matters related to increase and intake or setting up of new courses merger of courses.
42. It was further held that mere granting approval by AICTE and issuance of NOC by the JNTU does not create a right in favour 18 2023 (1) ALT 645 DB 32 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch of the petitioners insisting the State Government for grant of permission to increase and intake or setting up of new courses merger of courses.
43. In the present case, the State Government has rejected the claims made by the petitioners with the aforesaid specific reasons. It is the specific contention of the State Government that to maintain parity among the private educational institutions which were not granted additional intake earlier and the government taking into consideration needs of the locality, lack of enough competent engineers in co-branches like civil, mechanical and electrical has granted permission restricting intake in respect of the petitioners colleges as specifically mentioned in the permissions accorded to them. It is also the specific contention of the State Government that petitioners are seeking increase of seats/additional intake more than the required pass outs/ qualified students in TGEAPCET -2024. If the Engineering Colleges including the petitioners situated in urban area are allowed to go on increasing additional intake, it would lead to closing the engineering colleges which have been granted permission in the rural areas of the State. 33
KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch It is also the specific contention of the State Government that with an object to maintain balance among the conventional courses and emerging courses it has taken a decision not to allow the additional intake /increase of seats for the colleges which are earlier granted additional intake of seats. There is no discrimination in the said rejection orders.
44. It is also relevant to note that as per Section 20 of the Act, State Government is empowered to examine the aforesaid aspects in respect of petitioners colleges as held by Apex Court in Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra) Crescent Educational Society (supra).
45. As discussed supra, earlier respondents rejected the claims of the petitioners without examining the case of each petitioner separately and the orders are stereotyped. No reasons were assigned in respect of each college while rejecting their claims. Therefore, in the absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny as held by Apex Court in M/s. Kranti 34 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch Associates private Limited vs. Massood Ahmed Khan 19. On consideration of the said aspects, Division Bench set aside the common order passed in earlier batch of writ petitions. However, Division Bench directed Higher Education Department to consider claims of each of the petitioners and take a fresh decision in accordance with law expeditiously.
46. In compliance with the said order, 1st respondent has taken decision with regard to claim of each of the petitioners and rejected the same vide impugned orders. In the said impugned orders, 1st respondent has considered the approved intakes and admission details, available vacancy position in Kandlakoya locality, available vacancy position in private engineering colleges located in Medchal Malkajgiri District in B.Tech in CSE for the A.Y.2024-25. 1st respondent has also considered the data of admissions statistics of TGEAPCET-2024 before the internal sliding process as on 20.08.2024. 1st respondent has considered the same in respect of Kandlakoya locality and Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
19
(2010) 9 SCC 497, 35 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
47. 1st respondent further considered the fact that petitioners have not furnished proof of need for merger of courses/ increase in intake of B.Tech. in CSE for the A.Y.2024-25 in connection with the requirement of educational needs of the people in the locality and reduction of intake in core branches is not in tune with the policy of the government. Therefore, the proposed merger of courses/ increase in intake of B.Tech in CSE for the aforesaid Academic Year is not feasible in consideration. 1st respondent has specifically mentioned the details of the same in the Annexures mentioned supra.
48. It is also relevant to note that AICTE has conducted inspection of the petitioners colleges within one day. The Expert visiting Committee (EVC) has to conduct inspection properly. It has to consider the infrastructure facilities provided by petitioners colleges including the details of teaching and non-teaching staff, technical staff, library, computers, other infra-structural issues in detail. It cannot be like verification of the data furnished by the petitioners. The same is impermissible. It has to conduct inspection, not verification.
36
KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
49. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. This Court has to examine the validity and correctness of the decision making process. This Court cannot sit over as an appellate authority to decide the said factual aspects. If the decision making process is not in accordance with law and it is arbitrary, certainly this Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners have to necessarily make out a case that the impugned orders are arbitrary.
50. As discussed supra, in compliance with the common judgment dated 13.08.2024 in W.A.No.953 of 2024, 1st respondent has considered the claim of each of the petitioners herein and rejected the same. 1st respondent has considered all the aspects including the education policy, infrastructure, admissions and also available data etc. 1st respondent has also considered the approved intakes and admission details in B.Tech, CSE in the petitioners colleges for the Academic Year 2024-25. 1st respondent has also mentioned the available vacancy position in B.Tech, CSE courses in private Colleges in Kandlakoya locality where the petitioners 37 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch colleges are situated. 1st respondent has also considered available vacancy position in B.Tech CSE located in Medchal Malkajgiri District. The details of the same are specifically mentioned in the Annexures annexed to the impugned order. On consideration of the said aspects only, 1st respondent has rejected the request made by the petitioners.
51. Though the petitioners contended that 1st respondent rejected the claims of the petitioners on the ground that members of the petitioners Societies had political affiliations with the previous government, they failed to prove the same.
52. By filing the statement to prove intake capacity and admission details in B.Tech.,CSE course, in respect of colleges situated within the vicinity of the petitioners colleges in Kandlakoya and Medchal Malkajgiri districts, both Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would contend that 1st respondent has shown discrimination in respect of the petitioners. Though they have alleged discrimination, they failed to prove the same, by producing sufficient material Therefore, this Court is of the 38 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch considered view that the impugned order does not suffer with any irregularity and there is no arbitrariness or discrimination in the impugned orders.
53. As held by the Apex Court in Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra), 1st respondent has power to consider various aspects and also to stop mushroom growth of colleges/courses including intake capacity. However, 1st respondent has to exercise the said power reasonably without any discrimination or arbitrariness.
54. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no discrimination or arbitrariness in the impugned orders. The petitioners herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order.
55. As discussed supra, petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioners institutions as validly permitted, affiliated and approved institutions for the A.Y.2024-25 for all the courses of petitioners colleges and also seeking permission to fill up the seats as per the AICTE permitted intake for the A.Y.2024-25. They are also seeking a consequential direction to 39 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch respondent either to conduct fresh mop up round of counseling of the TGEAPCET-2024 permitting the petitioners to fill up the seats through spot admissions.
56. In the light of the same, it is relevant to extract that the schedule notified by Convener TGEAPCET-2024/Commissioner of Technical Education, 2nd respondent herein:-
a First Phase 04.07.2024 to 23.07.2024 b Second Phase 26.07.2024 to 04.08.2024 c Final Phase 08.08.2024 to 18.08.2024 d Provisional allotment on or before 13.08.2024 e Updating joining details by 18.08.2024 college f Centralized internal sliding by 21.08.2024 to 28.08.2024 Convenor g Spot admissions (for Private 30.08.2024 to 02.09.2024 Unaided Engineering Colleges) h Last date of uploading for Spot 03.09.2024 Admissions candidates details through online I Last date for submission of hard 04.09.2024 copies of the certificates of the candidate
57. Revised Academic Calendar 2024-25 issued by AICTE vide Circular dated 25.09.2024, is also extracted below:- 40
KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch (As per Hon'ble Supreme Court order in I.A.No.210538 of 2024, dated 23.09.2024 S.No. For Technical Institutions Schedule for A.Y.2024-25 (Not applicable for Standalone/ PGCM institutions) 1 Last Date upto which First Year 23rd October, 2024 Students can be admitted against vacancies 2 Last Date for Commencement of 23rd October, 2024 Classes for First Year Students of Technical Courses 3 Last Date for Lateral Entry 23rd October, 2024 Admission to Second Year Courses for Newly Admitted Students
58. It is also relevant to note that the Admission Schedule has to be rigidly followed at any circumstances and the last date for admission/joining will not be extended beyond time specified in the admission schedule. No deviation in the admission schedule is permissible as held by Apex Court in Education promotion society for India and another vs. Union of India and others 20.
59. The said schedule is expired long back. Even as per the information furnished by JNTU with regard to admission of students under MOP UP ROUND OF COUNSELLING in respect of petitioners colleges is as follows:-
20
2019 (7) SCC 38 41 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch Sl. College College Name Allotted Reported Exams Code students and written N Classes students o. attended students 1 H5 CMR College of 34 0 0 Engineering & Technology 2 8R CMR Engineering College 47 0 0 3 RO CMR Institute of 20 0 0 Technology 4 7R CMR Technical Campus 23 0 0 5 N3 Malla Reddy College of 51 2 0 Engineering & Technology (Autonomous) 6 RG Malla Reddy College of 0 0 0 Engineering for Women 7 RH Malla Reddy Engineering 40 0 0 College for Women 8 J4 Malla Reddy Engineering 8 0 0 College (Autonomous) 9 95 Institute of Aeronautical 52 26 26 Engineering 10 7Y Marri Laxman Reddy 6 0 0 Institute of Technology and Management 11 R2 MLR Institute of 37 0 0 Technology 12 K8 St.Martin's Engineering 13 11 9 College 13 C1 Anurag Engineering 11 0 0 College 14 01 Vidya Jyothi Institute of 34 21 13 Technology Total 376 60 48 42 KL,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch
60. The said data is not disputed by petitioners. But the only explanation offered by petitioners is that there is delay on the part of the respondents and pursuant to the orders granted by the Division Bench in the contempt cases, they have admitted the aforesaid students.
61. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, petitioners herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Date:02.05.2025.
Vvr