Telangana High Court
Maruthi Educational Society vs 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 & batchAct, 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 & batchbased 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 & batchSl. 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
[ad_1]
Source link