Telangana High Court

Chandramma Educational Society vs State Of Telangana on 9 August, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY


     WRIT PETITION Nos.19931, 19936, 19937, 19940, 20307,
     20468, 20537, 20548, 20579, 20583, 20586, 20587, 20595,
     20600, 20618, 20625, 20906, 20911, 20922, 20924, 20926,
      20996, 21093, 21096, 21224, 21487 and 21489 of 2024


COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is

intrinsically interconnected, they are taken up and heard together

and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. This batch of cases has been filed questioning the action of the

State Government in not sanctioning permission for Introduction of

New Course(s)/Increase in Intake(s)/Reduction of Intake(s)/Merger of

Course(s)/Closure of Course(s) in the petitioners-institutions for the

Academic Year 2024-25 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles

14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and to grant the

consequential reliefs.

3. Writ Petition No.20468 of 2024 is taken up as a leading case to

decide the lis in this batch of cases.

4. The brief facts of W.P.No.20468 of 2024 are that the petitioner

No.1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and

in furtherance of its objective, the petitioner No.1-society promoted

the petitioner No.2-institution for imparting technical education in

Engineering and Technical courses and obtained approval from the

All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and affiliation from

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad (JNTUH). It is

stated that in view of increasing demand for seats in some of the

Courses offered by the petitioner No.2-institution, it has made an

application to the JNTUH for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC)

to increase the intake of seats in the Courses, more particularly,

Computer Sciences and its allied Courses for the Academic Year

2024-25 and accordingly, the JNTUH issued NOC. It is stated that

thereafter, the petitioner No.2-institution applied to the AICTE for

approval of the said increase in intake and the AICTE conducted

inspection and having found that the petitioner No.2-Institution has

complied with the requirements of infrastructure and faculty,

granted approval to the Petitioner No.2-Institution for the Academic

Year 2024-25. The case of the petitioners is that after obtaining NOC

from the JNTUH and approval from the AICTE, they have made

application on the file of respondents for increase in intake and

merger of certain Courses for the Academic Year 2024-25 and when

the same was not considered by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, they were

constrained to file Writ Petition No.19291 of 2024 on the file of this

Court and this Court vide order dated 19.07.2024 directed the

respondent Nos.1 to 3 to dispose of the representation/application

submitted by the petitioners for increase in intake of existing

Courses/adjustment of seats in other Courses if the same is not

causing any financial implication on the Government. In

consideration whereof, the respondent No.1 has passed impugned

memo No.1433/TE/A2/2024 dated 27.07.2024 rejecting the case of

the petitioners for increase in intake and merger of certain courses

for the Academic Year 2024-25. Aggrieved by the rejection orders

passed by the respondent No.1, this batch of cases has been filed.

5. Considered the submissions of Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned

Senior Counsel, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel along

with the counsels on record for the petitioners, Sri S.Rahul Reddy,

learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional

Advocate General for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Mohd. Abdul

Quddus, learned Standing Counsel for JNTUH, Sri Mehboob Ali,

learned Standing Counsel for AICTE, Sri Ch.Jagannadha Rao,

learned Standing Counsel of Osmania University, Smt.C.Vani Reddy,

learned counsel appearing for Telangana State Council for Higher

Education and the Convener, TG EAPCET and this batch of cases is

disposed of at the admission stage.

6. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioners in W.P.No.20468 of 2024 has submitted that the

petitioner No.2-institution after providing infrastructure facilities,

faculty etc., has made application for issuance of NOC for

Introduction of New Course(s)/Increase in Intake(s)/Reduction of

Intake(s)/Merger of Course(s)/Closure of Course(s) in the petitioner-

institution for the Academic Year 2024-25. The JNTUH issued NOC

to the petitioner-institution. It is submitted that thereafter, the

petitioner-institution applied to AICTE for approval and the AICTE

after conducting inspection and having found that the petitioner has

complied with the Regulations issued by the AICTE and JNTUH from

time to time, granted approval for increase in additional intake/

adjustment of seats. It is further submitted that granting additional

intake/adjustment of seats/merger of seats in the demanded

Courses or closure of conventional Courses would not cause any

financial implication on the State Government. It is further

submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned order

passed by the respondent No.1 in rejecting to grant approval for

additional intake is without assigning any valid reasons and in the

absence of any policy, the same is not sustainable in law. It is

further contended that in the absence of framing any policy for the

Academic Year 2024-25, the action of respondent No.1 in granting

permissions for additional intakes to some of the institutions and

rejecting the permission to the petitioner-institution, amounts to

arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India as it amounts to treating the equals as

unequals. The learned Senior Counsel placing reliance on the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and

another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and

others 1 submitted that the case of the respondents cannot be

improved on the basis of the counter-affidavit or the written

submissions. When statutory functionary makes an order based on

certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so

mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the

shape of affidavit or otherwise and as the impugned order is bereft of

reasons, the same has to be declared as illegal and ultimately prayed

to allow the writ petition as prayed for.

7. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioners in W.P.No.20537 of 2024 and batch has submitted

that after conducting physical inspection of the petitioners-

institutions, the JNTUH issued NOC for additional intake/

adjustment of seats for the Academic Year 2024-25 and basing on

the same, the petitioners-institutions submitted applications to the

AICTE and the AICTE granted Extension of Approval (EoA) for the

Academic Year 2024-25. It is submitted that the petitioners-

institutions have complied with the required conditions of

Regulations of AICTE and JNTUH and as such the State cannot

(1978) 1 SCC 405

refuse to grant permission for additional intake except prescribing

the additional/higher standards to maintain excellence in higher

education. The learned Senior Counsel navigated the Court through

various Regulations of AICTE and JNTUH and pointed out that the

State Government cannot sit over the request for grant of approval,

because of the Regulations enjoined upon them to grant sanction of

Courses after due verification of the approval and NOCs issued in

favour of the institutions. The learned Senior Counsel further

submitted that in the absence of framing policy, the State

Government cannot restrict the number of institutions or decline to

grant additional seats/adjustment of seats in the institutions which

are in operation. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that

since the respondent No.1 *vide memo dated 23.07.2024 permitted

the unaided minority institutions in the State to increase intake in

existing courses/merge courses/introduce new courses; and since

vide Memo dated 26.07.2024 the respondent No.1 permitted merger

of two institutions and increase in intake in courses, it is not

permissible for Respondent No.1 to deny the same benefit to the

Petitioners as a 'policy decision' and there cannot be two policy

decisions i.e, one for the petitioners-institutions and the other for the

persons interested. Thus it is submitted that the action of the

Respondent No.1 is clearly in violation of the rights guaranteed

under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and to

allow the writ petitions, as prayed for.

8. Per contra, Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government

Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 relied upon the written instructions issued

by the respondent No.2 vide letter No.CTE-ACD1/APPR/33/3034-

Academic-1 dated 06.08.2024 and submitted that the issue of

merger of courses/institutions/increase in intakes needs to be

looked in the broad perspective of the availability of faculty and

infrastructure, maintenance of teaching standards at the petitioner

colleges. The conditional NOCs issued by JNTUH to the petitioner

colleges, only enables them to make application to the AICTE and

they are subject to approval of Government and fulfillment of

academic regulations of the University regarding faculty and

infrastructure. It is further submitted that the issue of Government

approval in the said subject does not limit to the financial

implications due to Reimbursement of Tuition Fee (RTF) to the

admitted students in granting increase in intakes by the petitioners-

institutions. If merger of courses/institutions/increase in intakes is

allowed on self-finance basis, the admitted students will have to bear

the burden of tuition fee themselves, unless the petitioner colleges

come forward to offer education to SC/ST/BC/Minorities/students

studied in Government funded Junior Colleges etc., free of cost

without commercialization of professional education and in line with

RTF scheme of Government. It is further stated in the said letter that

the AICTE had granted approvals for merger of courses/institutions/

increase in intakes based on the self-disclosure of particulars by the

petitioner colleges and Expert Visiting Committee (EVC) inspection

had not been done by the AICTE regarding the availability of required

faculty and infrastructure. It is further stated that AICTE had

stopped linking additional intake/new colleges to NBA accredited

courses in the respective Colleges for the year 2024-25 and therefore

this mushrooming of additional intake/new courses is sought to be

stopped in respect of the Colleges already having huge intakes. It is

further stated that there is no discrimination against Petitioners-

institutions and it is only an attempt to undertake rationalization of

additional intakes/merger of courses in Professional Colleges, in the

interest of maintenance of academic standards. It is submitted that

some of the Colleges have already been given additional intake up to

maximum of (120) seats on the common criterion of their enrolment

last year, even after sanction for additional intake, the present batch

of Writ Petitions are filed for more increase in intakes on 'self-finance'

basis. It is further argued that there are number of colleges existing

within the vicinity of Hyderabad and as a policy the Government is

not permitting to establish any Engineering College, as per the

proposal submitted by the Aurora Group of Institutions. The learned

Special Government Pleader has placed on record, Annexures I to III

enclosed in support of the written instructions, extracted below:

ANNEXURE-I

Statement showing the intakes of colleges established prior to the year 2000

Intake in S.No College Location Established in

CHAITANYA BHARATHI 1 GANDIPET 1979 1290 INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY M J COLLEGE OF

TECHNOLOGY M V S R ENGINEERING 3 NADERGUL 1981 1020 COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) DECCAN COLLEGE OF

TECHNOLOGY V N R VIGNANA JYOTHI 5 INSTITUTE OF ENGG AND BACHUPALLY 1995 1800 TECH BHOJREDDY ENGINEERING

COLLEGE FOR WOMEN B V RAJU INSTITUTE OF 7 NARSAPUR 1997 1502 TECHNOLOGY G NARAYANAMMA INSTITUTE

OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCI GOKARAJU RANGARAJU

9 INSTITUTE OF ENGG AND BACHUPALLY 1997 1320 TECH MAHATMA GANDHI INSTITUTE

(AUTONOMOUS) J B INSTITUTE OF ENGG AND

TECHNOLOGY (AUTONOMOUS)

Statement showing the intakes of Petitioners' Group Colleges

Intake in S.No College Location Established in

CMR TECHNICAL CAMPUS 1 KANDLAKOYA 2009 1200 (AUTONOMOUS) C M R COLLEGE OF ENGG 2 AND TECHNOLOGY KANDLAKOYA 2002 1500 (AUTONOMOUS) CMR INSTITUTE OF 3 KANDLAKOYA 2005 1080 TECHNOLOGY (AUTONOMOUS) CMR ENGG COLLEGE 4 KANDLAKOYA 2010 1140 (AUTONOMOUS) MALLA REDDY COLLEGE OF ENGG TECHNOLOGY 5 MAISAMMAGUDA 2004 1320 (AUTONOMOUS)

MALLA REDDY ENGG

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MALLA REDDY ENGG 7 COLLEGE FOR WOMEN MAISAMMAGUDA 2008 1680 (AUTONOMOUS) MALLAREDDY ENGINEERING 8 MAISAMMAGUDA 2002 1650 COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) MALLA REDDY COLLEGE OF

ENGINEERING FOR WOMEN MALLAREDDY INST OF 10 TECHNOLOGY AND SCI MAISAMMAGUDA 2005 1020 (AUTONOMOUS) ST MARTINS ENGINEERING 11 DHULAPALLY 2002 1200 COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICAL 12 DUNDIGAL 2002 1590 ENGINEERING MLR INSTITUTE OF 13 DUNDIGAL 2005 1440 TECHNOLOGY (AUTONOMOUS) MARRI LAXMAN REDDY INST OF TECHNOLOGY AND 14 DUNDIGAL 2009 1200 MANAGEMENT (AUTONOMOUS)

ANNEXURE-II

List of WPs listed for hearing before the Hon'ble High Court on 06-08-2024 (through additional seats given)

Additional S.No W.P.No. Name of the Instt.

Seats given Sphoorthy Engineering College 1 WP 20307/2024 Nadargul Village Near Vanasthalipuram 120 Saroornagar Holy Mary Institute of Technology and Science 2 WP 20583/2024 Bogaram Village Keesara Mandal Rangareddy 120 District Kodad Institute of Technology and Science for

Women, Ananthagiri Road Suryapet District K G Reddy College of Engineering and Technology 4 WP 21093/2024 Chilkur Village Moinabad Mandal Rangareddy 120 District Muffakham Jah College of Engineering and 5 WP 21096/2024 Technology, 82249267 Mount Pleasant Road No.3 120 Banjara Hills Hyderabad Narsimhareddy Engineering College

Sy.No.518 Maisaramguda Village, Dulapally

ANNEXURE-III STATEMENT SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED FOUR (4) NEW ENGG COLLEGES IN HYDERABAD BY THE AURORA GROUP S.No. College Location 1 AURORAS ENGG COLLEGE ABIDS, HYDERABAD BEGUMPET, 2 AURORAS TECHNOLOGICAL & RESEARCH ACADEMY HYDERABAD MOOSARAMBAGH, 3 AURORAS TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTION HYDERABAD AURORAS TECHNOLOGICAL ACADEMY MOULALI,

HYDERABAD

STATEMENT SHOWING THE LOCATION IN THE EXISTING ENGG COLLEGES IN HYDERABAD S.No. College Location METHODIST COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND 1 ABIDS TECHNOLOGY (AUTONOMOUS) STANLEY COLLEGE OF ENGG AND TECHNOLOGY FOR 2 ABIDS WOMEN (AUTONOMOUS) BVRIT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING FOR WOMEN 3 BACHUPALLY (AUTONOMOUS) GOKARAJU LAILAVATHI WOMENS ENGINEERING 4 BACHUPALLY COLLEGE 5 GOKARAJU RANGARAJU INSTITUTE OF ENGG AND TECH BACHUPALLY 6 VNR VIGNANA JYOTHI INSTITUTE OF ENGG AND TECH BACHUPALLY 7 MJ COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY BANJARA HILLS 8 DECCAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY DARUSSALAM 9 CHAITANYA BHARATHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GANDIPET MAHATMA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 10 GANDIPET (AUTONOMOUS) SRIDEVI WOMENS ENGINEERING COLLEGE 11 GANDIPET AUTONOMOUS LORDS INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY 12 HIMAYATSAGAR (AUTONOMOUS) 13 MUMTAZ COLL OF ENGG TECHNOLOGY HYDERABAD 14 MATRUSRI ENGINEERING COLLEGE HYDERABAD 15 O U COLLEGE OF ENGG HYDERABAD HYDERABAD 16 OU COLLEGE OF TECH HYDERABAD HYDERABAD 17 O U COLLEGE OF TECH HYDERABAD SELF FINANCE HYDERABAD 18 VASAVI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING HYDERABAD 19 MVSR ENGINEERING COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) NADERGUL 20 SPHOORTHY ENGINEERING COLLEGE NADERGUL SREYAS INST OF ENGG AND TECHNOLOGY 21 NAGOLE (AUTONOMOUS) 22 KESHAV MEMORIAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY NARAYANAGUDA NAWAB SHAH ALAM KHAN COLL OF ENGG AND TECH 23 NEW MALAKPET (AUTONOMOUS) SHADHAN COLLOF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY 24 PEERANCHERU (AUTONOMOUS) 25 BHOJREDDY ENGINEERING COLLEGE FOR WOMEN SAIDABAD 26 SWAMI VIVEKANANDA INST OF TECHNOLOGY SECUNDERABAD 27 CSI WESLEY INST OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCES SECUNDERABAD 28 G NARAYNAMMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCI SHAIKPET

9. The learned Special Government Pleader relying on the

aforesaid information has stated that taking into consideration the

existing strength of the institutions, the petitioners in Writ Petition

Nos.20307, 20583, 20926, 21093, 21096 and 21224 of 2024 were

granted additional intake of 120 seats. It is further submitted that to

maintain parity among the institutions and to avoid unhealthy

competition and taking into consideration the needs of the locality

and keeping in mind, sustainability of the institutions established in

rural areas, the respondent No.1 has issued memos dated

23.07.2024 and 26.07.2024. It is stated that in adopting such

procedure by the State, there is no illegality or irregularity and the

same does not amounts to discrimination. In fact for earlier

academic years, when these institutions were denied additional

intake, the State Government to maintain the parity, has sanctioned

additional intake vide memos dated 23.07.2024 and 26.07.2024. It is

contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that mere

issuance of NOC by the JNTUH and approval by the AICTE, does not

restrict the State Government to exercise its powers under Section 20

of the Education Act to prevent the mushroom growth of the

institutions/Courses and as the abnormal increase of intake would

lead to congestion in the educational institutions. It is submitted

that if the institutions are permitted to run each and every course,

that will affect the standard of education. It is also stated that as per

the letter dated 04.07.2024 addressed by the Registrar of JNTUH to

the Member Secretary, AICTE, New Delhi, the surge in seats

particularly in CSE and allied branches, resulted in shortage of

qualified teaching faculty which is gravely affecting the quality of

education in large number of institutions. The learned Special

Government Pleader also produced a letter dated 07.08.2024

addressed by the respondent No.2, wherein the Perspective Plan of

the State Government for setting up of new Technical Institutes for

the Academic Year 2018-19 is enclosed and submitted that based on

the aforesaid perspective plan, the Government would like to strike a

balance and rationalization of new courses/intakes in Professional

Colleges in the State. It is contended that the respondent No.1 taking

into consideration over all facts and circumstances, has rejected the

claim of the petitioners for merger of courses and increase in intakes

and there are no legal infirmities in the impugned orders passed by

the respondent No.1 warranting interference by this Court and

ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. In support of his

submissions, the learned Special Government Pleader relied upon

the following decisions:

i) Cherabuddi Educational Society rep. by its Chairman Mr.Raghav and others vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad rep. by its Registrar and others 2

ii) Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University vs. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet and others 3

iii) A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University and another vs. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology and others 4

10. Both the learned Standing Counsel for AICTE and the learned

Standing Counsel for JNTUH submitted that the Registrar of the

2023 (1) ALT 645 (DB) (TS)

AIR Online 2018 SC 663

(2021) 2 SCC 564

JNTUH has addressed a letter dated 04.07.2024 to the AICTE, New

Delhi, appealing to restore the significant conventional branches

(viz., Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Electrical and

Electronics Engineering) intake in Affiliated Colleges of JNTUH,

Hyderabad for the Academic Year 2024-25. Both the Counsel further

submitted that the AICTE and JNTUH are only authorities to

prescribe the standard of education and to conduct inspection and

verify the infrastructure facilities and faculty. As per the Regulation

5.6(a) of All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of

Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2020 ("AICTE

Regulations") existing institutions should submit applications using

their unique User ID. Regulation 6.3 (a) states that the applications

submitted by the existing institutions will be processed after

confirming that the applicant had fulfilled all the norms and

standards through the procedure as prescribed in the Approval

Process Handbook. Chapter II of the Approval Process Handbook

makes it clear that the extension of approval will be based on

selfdisclosure. It is for the State Government to examine and satisfy

the requirements of educational needs of the locality for starting new

college/new Courses in existing colleges. It is further submitted that

since the petitioners-institutions have submitted applications, the

AICTE verified those applications online and recommended for

additional intake and that does not confer any right to the

petitioners-institutions for granting permission as a matter of right.

Both the Counsel adopted the remaining submissions made by the

learned Special Government Pleader.

11. The petitioners-institutions have been established from the

year 2002. Originally, there were about 11 colleges, prior to the year

2000. Thereafter, the State Government in view of rapid urban

growth and development of industrial region has allowed various

colleges to come up within the vicinity of Hyderabad and Ranga

Reddy Districts. Some of the Engineering Colleges have been

sanctioned with an object to provide technical education to the rural

people. The State Government has taken many initiatives for the

development of manufacturing industries in the region and those

initiatives are designed to cater to the requirements of various

industries from large industrial projects to Micro, Small and Medium

Enterprises Sector. The respondent No.1 after conducting survey in

terms of Section 20 of the Education Act, allowed various private

engineering colleges within the region of Telangana (part of erstwhile

of Andhra Pradesh).

12. The Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad

("TSCHE") has issued TGEAPCET-2024 (previously TSEAPCET-2024)

notification for payment of processing fee, slot booking, certificate

verification and option exercise for web based counseling for the

eligible and qualified candidates of TGEAPCET-2024 seeking

admission into B.E/B.Tech/Pharmacy Courses for the Academic

Year 2024-25. As per the Counseling Schedule, the First Phase is

from 04.07.2024 to 23.07.2024; Second Phase is from 26.07.2024 to

04.08.2024; Final Phase is from 08.08.2024 to 18.08.2024 (wherein

the payment of Tuition Fee & Self Reporting Through Website is from

13.08.2024 to 15.08.2024 and reporting at the College, in case of

change of Branch/College, the dates are between 16.08.2024 to

17.08.2024); Centralized Internal Sliding by Convener is from

21.08.2024 to 28.08.2024 and spot admissions for private unaided

engineering colleges is on 28.08.2024. While the First Phase of

Counseling is in process, the petitioners herein filed several Writ

Petitions (W.P.No.19291 of 2024 and batch) on the file of this Court

seeking a direction to the respondents to consider for additional

intake/increase in seats. When the respondent No.1 rejected for

increasing the additional intake, this batch of Writ Petitions has been

filed mainly on the ground of discrimination stating that the

Government having considered the cases of some of the colleges

denied to exercise the same discretion in favour of the petitioners-

institutions and the said action of the respondent No.1 is

discriminatory and illegal.

13. Earlier when some of the petitioners-institutions and other

institutions have not been permitted for additional intake on the

similar grounds, they filed W.P.No.36237 of 2022 and batch

(Cherabuddi Educational Society's case (supra)) on the file of this

Court and a Division Bench of this Court (wherein I was one of the

Member), dismissed the said writ petitions on the observations that

the State Government is having power to grant permission for

increase/additional intake in terms of Section 20 of the Education

Act and mere granting approval by the AICTE or issuance of NOC by

the JNTUH, does not create a right in favour of the petitioners for

insisting the Government for granting permission.

14. The case of the petitioners herein is that they have fulfilled all

the requirements as per the norms prescribed by the Affiliated

Universities and AICTE for sanction of additional intake/adjustment

of seats and after conducting physical inspection and having been

satisfied that the petitioners-institutions have fulfilled the

requirements of providing infrastructure and faculty, the JNTUH and

AICTE recommended for additional intake/adjustment of seats,

which would not cause any financial implication on the State

Government and since they have already complied with the

conditions, as a matter of right, they are entitled for sanction of

additional intake to the respective Courses. It is further case of the

petitioners that the State Government while sanctioning additional

intake of 120 seats to similarly situated persons, has not taken into

consideration the claims of petitioners and the said action on the

part of respondents amounts to discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

15. The respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the petitioners on

the following main 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 in takes at the petitioner colleges is a policy matter, irrespective of the colleges readiness to run the said Courses."

16. Adverting to the above grounds, learned Senior Counsels

appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the absence of

framing any policy by the State, there is no rational basis in the

classification between the minorities and non-minorities in making

preferential treatment and said classification cannot be sustained on

the principle of reasonable classification and it amounts to

discriminatory, treating the equals as unequals and not in-

consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further

contention of the petitioners that granting permission to some of the

colleges and denying the same to the petitioners with the political

agenda amounts to political malice. It is also case of the petitioners

that in view of granting permission by the JNTUH and AICTE,

invariably State has to grant permission and the State can only

prescribe additional standards but it cannot refuse to grant

permission.

17. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent No.1 that to

maintain parity among the private educational institutions which

were not granted additional intake earlier, the Government taking

into consideration needs of the locality and lack of enough competent

engineers in core branches like Civil, Mechanical and Electrical, has

granted permission restricting intake for 120 seats. It is further case

of the respondent No.1 that petitioners are seeking increase of

seats/additional intake more than the required pass-outs/qualified

students in TGEAPCET-2024 and if the engineering colleges/

petitioners, which are 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. The State Government with an object to maintain balance

among the conventional Courses and emerging Courses, has taken a

decision not to allow the additional intake/ increase of seats for the

colleges which were earlier granted additional intake of seats. It is

stated that there is no discrimination on the part of the State

Government and there is no political malice and to demonstrate the

same, the respondents cited some of the petitioners-institutions

which were granted additional intake of 120 seats. It is further case

of the respondents that since the policy had already been laid down

under Section 20 of the Education Act, and powers have already

been conferred to maintain educational needs and standards and

even in the absence of survey or plan being prepared for the

Academic Year 2024-25, it does not take away the right of the State

to consider the genuine cases keeping in mind the educational needs

of the locality.

18. The petitioners case is solely based on the ground of

discrimination stating that the respondent No.1 having granted

permission to some of the minority institutions/private colleges,

cannot deny extending the same benefit of sanction of additional

intake of seats to the petitioners-institutions in terms of the

recommendations of the AICTE and JNTUH. The letter dated

04.07.2024 addressed by the Registrar of JNTUH to the AICTE, New

Delhi reads as under:

"JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD (Established by Govt. Act No. 30 of 2008) Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500085, Telangana, India.

Dr.K.VENKATESWARA RAO M. Sc..M.Tech., Phd.,PDF (Johns Hopkins Medicine USA) Professor of Nano Technology & REGISTRAR

Lr.No: JNTUH/DAAA/Affiliation/Conventional branches/2024-25 Date: 04-07-2024 To The Hon'ble Member Secretary All India Council for Technical Education Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070

Sir,

Sub: JNTUH - An appeal to restore the significant conventional branches (viz. Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Electrical and Electronics Engineering) intake in Affiliated Colleges of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad (JNTUH) for the A.Y. 2024-25-Reg.

Ref: Note orders of Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor I/C, dated: 04.07.2024

I am to invite your attention in issuing a EOA to engineering colleges in Telangana for every year with increase in intake in CSE & allied branches and merging / sliding / closure of conventional branches of Engineering in particular Civil, Electrical & Mechanical. The Government of Telangana is actively promoting technical education across various disciplines including Diploma, B.Tech. / B.E., B.Arch, B.Pharmacy, M.Tech, M.Pharm, MBA, and MCA to support industrial development in all sectors.

AICTE has been sanctioning the additional seats in CSE & its allied branches and also allowing the institutions for merging / sliding / closure of conventional branches of engineering (Civil, Mechanical and Electrical). without actually accessing the future need of the state. However, this approach may not fully align with the future needs of our state.

The surge in seats, particularly in CSE and allied branches, has resulted in a shortage of qualified teaching faculty, which is gravely affecting the quality of education offered by many of these institutions.

By merging / sliding / closure of conventional branches, particularly Civil, Mechanical, Electrical branches raises concerns among professionals involved in technical education planning. These disciplines are vital for societal development and essential for addressing the needs of our growing civilization.

In consideration of these facts, I respectfully request your office to revise the EOA criteria for the academic year 2024-25 to maintain the current intake levels and branch offerings consistent with the academic year 2023-24. We are committed to presenting a detailed perspective plan for technical education well in advance of the academic year 2025-26.

Your understanding and support in this matter are greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your attention to this important request.

Warm regards Sd/- xxxx REGISTRAR Copy to:

1. The concerned Managements of affiliated Engineering Colleges of JNTUH, with a request to acquire revised EOA from AICTE accordingly.

2. PA to Vice-Chancellor / Rector / Registrar, JNTUH for information"

19. A perusal of the aforesaid letter dated 04.07.2024 would reveal

that the Registrar of JNTUH, has made an appeal to the AICTE to

restore the significant conventional branches (viz., Civil Engineering,

Mechanical Engineering and Electrical and Electronics Engineering)

intake in Affiliated Colleges of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological

University, Hyderabad (JNTUH) for the Academic Year 2024-25. The

Registrar of the JNTUH in his letter stated that AICTE has been

sanctioning additional intakes particularly in Computer Science

Engineering and its allied branches and also allowing the institutions

for merging/sliding/closure of conventional branches of engineering

(Civil, Mechanical and Electrical) without actually assessing the

future need of the State. Further, the surge in seats, particularly in

CSE and allied branches, has resulted in shortage of qualified

teaching faculty, which is gravely affecting the quality of education

offered by many of these institutions. The Registrar of JNTUH, while

explaining the above factual situation requested the AICTE to revise

the Extension of Approval (EoA) criteria for the Academic Year 2024-

25 to maintain the current intake levels and branch offerings

consistent with the Academic Year 2023-24. The JNTUH after

issuance of the NOC in favour of the petitioners, turned down its own

policy for increase of additional intake and addressed letter dated

04.07.2024 to the AICTE requesting to revise the Extension of

Approval granted in favour of the petitioners, which action creates a

doubt in the minds of right thinking persons of the Society about fair

conduct of inspection by the JNTUH and the AICTE in compliance

with the provisions of the Education Act and the Regulations issued

from time to time. In view of the dual stand being taken by the

JNTUH, it requires the Government to conduct physical verification

to satisfy itself whether the requirements which are necessary as per

the provisions of Education Act and AICTE Regulations are fulfilled

by the petitioners in its exercise of discretion to grant approvals.

20. It is to be seen from the record that the State Government

while granting permission for increase of additional intake to the

minority educational institutions and some others institutions like

petitioners in W.P.Nos.20307, 20583, 20926, 21093, 21096 and

21224 of 2024 has not undertaken to conduct survey under Section

20 of the Education Act, to know the educational needs of the

locality, which action on the part of the State amounts to illegal and

irregular and the petitioners cannot insist the State Government to

extend the same benefit of irregular/illegal orders adopting the same

method. Though it is stated by the Government that to maintain

parity among the institutions, additional intake was sanctioned to

other institutions, to substantiate the same no evidence is placed

before this Court. An irregular allotment of seats/intake of seats in

favour of certain colleges does not create any right in favour of

petitioners to claim same and similar benefits on the ground of

discrimination. It is settled law that concept of equality as envisaged

under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive concept

which cannot be enforced in negative manner. It is also settled law

that benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal

manner cannot be claimed by the citizens on the ground of equality

as enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution of India.

21. In Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur vs.

Daulat Mal Jain and others 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered

the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and reiterated its earlier

position regarding the concept of equality holding:

"Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made to some other persons wrongly, would

JT 1996 (8) SC 387=1997(1) SCC 35

not form a legal premise to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could it be legalised. In other words, judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. Thus, considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents."

22. In State of Bihar and others vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh

and another 6, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope

and content of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, observed as

under:

"30". 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. [JT 1996(1) SC 647=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."

23. In Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh 7, the Hon'ble Apex

Court observed as under:

"8. We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such

[JT 2000(5) SC 2306 =AIR 2000 SC 306]

(1995) 1 SCC 745

pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be.

That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law -- indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law -- but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioners' case is similar to the other persons' case. But then why examine another person's case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the Court and seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the Court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or action taken in another person's case, which other person is not before the case nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a course --barring exceptional situations -- would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in the judicial world. (What is the position in the case of orders passed by authorities in exercise of their quasi- judicial power, we express no opinion. That can be dealt with when a proper case arises.)"

24. Reiterating the aforesaid principle, the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Usha Mehta vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 8, held that a

mandate cannot be issued to the State to commit illegality or pass a

wrong order because in another case such an illegality has been

committed and wrong order was passed.

25. In Cherabuddi Educational Society's case (supra), a Division

Bench of this Court, while considering the similar issue relating to

additional intake of seats for the Academic Year 2022-23 and powers

conferred on the State Government under the Telangana Education

Act, 1982, has laid down the law as follows:

"34. Before we deal with the other impugned Regulations of JNTU, we may advert to Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982. Section 20 of the aforesaid Act reads as under:

20. Permission for establishment of educational institutions.- (1) The competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction, and notify in the prescribed manner through the local newspapers calling for applications from the educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions.

(2) In pursuance of the notification under sub-section (1), any educational agency including local authority or registered body of persons intending to-

(a) establish an institution imparting education;

(b) open higher classes in an institution imparting primary education;

(d) open new courses (certificate, diploma, degree, post-graduate degree courses, etc.), may make an application, within such period in such manner and to such authority as may be notified for the grant of permission therefor.

(2012) 12 SCC 419

(3) Any educational agency applying for permission under sub-section (2) shall-

(a) before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority concerned-

(i) that there is need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality;

(ii) that there is adequate financial provision for continued and efficient maintenance of the institution as prescribed by the competent authority;

(iii) that the institution is proposed to be located in sanitary and healthy surroundings;

(b) enclose to the application-

(i) title deeds relating to the site for building, playground and garden proposed to be provided;

(ii) plans approved by the local authority concerned which shall conform to the rules prescribed therefor; and

(iii) documents evidencing availability of the finances needed for constructing the proposed buildings; and

(i) appoint teaching staff qualified according to the rules made by the Government in this behalf;

(ii) satisfy the other requirements laid down by this Act and the rules and orders made thereunder failing which it shall be competent for the said authority to cancel the permission.

(4) On and from the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Education (Amendment) Act, 1987, no educational institution shall be established except in accordance with the provisions of this Act and any person who contravenes the provisions of this section or who after the permission granted to him under this section having been cancelled continues to run such institution shall be punished with simple imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than three thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees:

Provided further that the court convicting a person under this section shall also order the closure of the institution with respect to which the offence is committed.

34.1. Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act deals with permission for establishment of educational institutions. While sub-section (1) mandates the competent authority to conduct survey from time to time so as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction,

sub-section (2) enables any educational agency to make an application to such competent authority to establish an institution or to open new courses etc. Sub-section (3) on the other hand, requires fulfilment of certain conditions by the educational agency applying for permission under sub-section (2) whereas sub-section (4) prohibits establishment of any educational institution except in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Education Act.

35. This provision came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra). Lauding the objective behind the aforesaid provision, Supreme Court held as follows:

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 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.

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.

35.1. In the aforesaid decision, Supreme Court has categorically held that provisions of the Telangana Education Act are not repugnant to the AICTE Act and therefore, there is no room to accept the submission that Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act is inoperative. Elaborating on this aspect, Supreme Court has held that AICTE Act does not lay down any norm as to how many colleges should be there in a particular city/place. 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 provision/policy. Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act enables Universities to grant NOC after considering the local requirement. As no guidelines in this regard have been framed by AICTE, it cannot be said to be an exercise of power against norms fixed by AICTE. Consequently, no repugnancy arises.

36. Reverting back to the impugned regulations, we have already noticed that the common thread running through the above regulations is the

need to obtain NOC from the State Government in the event of increase in seat intake or starting of a new course which is mandatory. We have also noted above, challenge to Regulation 3.4 has been repelled by this Court in V.R.K.Educaional Society (supra). As held by the Supreme Court in SangamLaxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra) 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 relating to increase in seat intake or setting up of new courses.

xxxxx

39.1. Referring to the decision in Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology (supra), Supreme Court held that the role played by the State Government and by the affiliating University cannot be overlooked. After the advent of AICTE Regulations, applications for extension of approval are processed online on the basis of self- disclosure. Therefore, it is all the more necessary for the Universities to conduct the process of affiliation with scrupulous care in order to ensure that the interest of students is not imperilled. Of course, in that case, State Government had granted NOC and JNTU indicated its willingness to take the process of affiliation post NOC.

40. Thus, on an indepth analysis of the above decisions and upon thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we are of the unhesitant view that challenge to Regulations 3.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 6.1 of the Regulations cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly rejected. Further prayer made for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner institutions to introduce the new courses and to increase the seat intake cannot also be granted in view of rejection of the State Government to grant NOC for the said purpose. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners at this stage. Consequently, all the writ petitions are found to be devoid of merit. Those are accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.."

26. Taking into consideration the overall facts and powers of the

State Government under Section 20 of the Education Act, and as the

irregular orders issued in favour of some of the institutions does not

confer any benefit to the petitioners and as the petitioners failed to

establish malfeasance and misfeasance acts on the State

Government; and as the respondent No.1 is conferred with the power

to maintain parity among the institutions; to cater the educational

needs of the locality; to curb the unhealthy competition among the

educational institutions; and as the interest of petitioners will not

prevail over the object of the State to maintain standard of education

in rationalization of seats in conventional engineering/ emerging

engineering courses, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the