Telangana High Court
Mgr Educational Society vs State Of Telangana on 13 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.953, 954, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962,
970, 971 and 973 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble SP,J):
Sri D.Prakash Reddy, S.Niranjan Reddy, Sri P.Sri Raghuram
and Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Tarun G.
Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy,
learned Advocate General, appears for the State, Sri Abdul Quddus
Mohammed, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU, appears for JNTU
and Sri M.Mehboob Ali, learned Standing Counsel for AICTE,
appears for AICTE.
2. These intra-Court appeals i.e., W.A. Nos. 953, 954 and 957 of
2024 are directed against the common order dated 09.08.2024.
However, a request is made that the nine similar writ appeals are
also filed against the same common order and although they are not
listed, on the request of the counsel and in the absence of opposition
by the other aside, they are also clubbed with these appeals. On the
joint request of the parties, they were analogously heard and decided
by this common order.
3. The facts are taken from W.A. No. 953 of 2024.
The admitted facts between the parties are that this is second
visit of the appellants to this Court. The appellants, in order to
modify/enhance the intake of seats and merger of courses, preferred
2
SP,J & RRN,J
Wa_953_2024 & batch
applications before All India Council for Technical Education
('AICTE') and Jawaharlal Nehru Technical University ('JNTU'). The
case of appellants is that both the statutory bodies granted them
necessary permissions and the only impediment was that the official
respondents have not taken any decision. The appellants at that
stage preferred W.P.No.19102 of 2024 and it was disposed of on
19.07.2024 by directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to examine the
case of petitioners for increase in intake of existing courses and also
adjustment of seats in other courses as approved by AICTE and
JNTU and for inclusion of appellants' institution in counseling
process for academic year 2024-25. The learned Single Judge also
recorded that in the aforesaid exercise and permission etc., there
would be no financial implication on the State Government.
4. In furtherance of the order of this Court, the respondents
passed the order dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure-P.14) which became
subject matter of challenge before the Writ Court. After quoting
certain judgments of the Apex Court, the authority declined to grant
permission to the appellants.
5. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the aforesaid writ petitions and
apprised the learned Single Judge that the order is devoid of reasons
and in the light of constitution bench judgment of Supreme Court in
Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner 1. The
AIR 1978 SC 651
SP,J & RRN,J
Wa_953_2024 & batch
validity of the impugned order must be examined on the basis of
reasons assigned therein and not on the basis of reasons furnished
in the counter affidavit filed before this Court.
6. Another ground of attack to the impugned action was that the
respondents on the one hand declined permission to the appellants
despite approval from AICTE and JNTU, on the other hand,
permitted certain unaided educational institutions to undertake
same exercise and granted them permission. There should have
been some transparent policy on the strength of which such
decisions could be taken. The decision of authority cannot be based
on whims and fancies.
7. The learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid aspect and
by placing reliance on Section 20 of the Education Act, opined that
under the Act, the Government is competent to examine various
facets. If permission is illegally granted to certain educational
institutions, that cannot be a ground to repeat the same mistake. In
other words, the learned Single Judge opined that the negative
equality cannot be claimed in the teeth of Article 14 of the
Constitution and, therefore, the relief was declined.
8. The bone of contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for
appellants is that if the operative reasons mentioned in the
impugned order dated 26.07.2024 are carefully examined, it will be
SP,J & RRN,J
Wa_953_2024 & batch
clear that the order is an example of non-application of mind. The
similar stereotype order, without there being any change (except
change in the name of the institution), is communicated to all the
appellants. The relevant factors on the strength of which decision
was required to be taken were ignored.
9. Learned single Judge erred in applying the doctrine of negative
equality. The validity of impugned order should have been tested on
the anvil of reasons mentioned therein and there was no question of
applying the negative equality doctrine.
10. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P. Sri Raghuram, appearing for the
appellants further submits that in a case of this nature, this Court
itself can pass appropriate orders in place of the Authority to ensure
the compliance of previous order and to secure the ends of justice.
11. Learned Advocate General, per contra, supported the impugned
order and placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v. Sangam Laxmi Bai
Vidyapeet 2 and Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v.
Crescent Educational Society 3.
12. On the strength of these judgments, it is submitted that in the
first judgment, it was clearly held that the scope and ambit of
(2019) 17 SCC 729
(2021) 16 SCC 165
SP,J & RRN,J
Wa_953_2024 & batch
Section 20 of the Education Act shows that it has no 'head on' with
Section 10 of the AICTE Act. Both the provisions operate for
different purpose, and therefore, as per Section 25 of the Education
Act, the State is entitled to examine the case of the college. Almost
for same purpose, he placed reliance on another judgment of the
Supreme Court in Crescent Educational Society (supra).
13. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated
above. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on rival
contentions and perused the record.
14. The admitted facts reflect that when the appellants visited this
Court in W.P.No.19102 of 2024. This Court by taking into account
the approval given by AICTE and JNTU directed that the
respondents to take a decision. In turn, the impugned decision
dated 26.07.2024 was taken.
15. As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants upto para 7, the Department has reproduced the relevant
paragraphs of the Supreme Court judgments. Para 8 onwards reads
thus:
"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 availability of infrastructure, maintenance of teaching
SP,J & RRN,J
Wa_953_2024 & batch
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. Further, the issue of merger of courses/institutions/
increase in intakes at the Petitioner Colleges is a policy matter,
irrespective of the Colleges' readiness to run the said courses.
10. In the circumstances and keeping in view of the aforesaid
orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court/Hon'ble High Court of
Telangana and in exercise of the provisions of Section 20 of the
Telangana Education Act 1982, the proposal for the merger of
courses/increase in intakes at the Petitioner Institutions viz.
Vidyajyothi Institute of Technology and Anurag Engineering
College from the A.Y.2024-25 is hereby rejected, in terms of the
provisions of Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982
and in the light of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in JNTU
vs. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet and others.
11. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Hyderabad is
therefore requested to inform the above decision to the Petitioner
Institutions taken in compliance of the orders of Hon'ble High
Court issued in WP No.19102 of 2024 and 19124 of 2024."
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. A microscopic reading of paras 8 and 9 of the impugned order
makes it clear that while holding that the financial implication is not
the only parameter and the other parameter needs to be looked into,
such as infrastructure, maintenance of teaching standard in
colleges, etc., the specific case and claim of each of the appellant
was nowhere discussed and analysed on those parameters. Putting
it differently, paras 8 and 9 only show about the principles and
parameters on the anvil of which claim of each of appellants was
required to be tested. However, case of the appellants and their
SP,J & RRN,J
Wa_953_2024 & batch
facts have not been considered, analysed and examined. Thus, we
find force in the argument of learned Senior Counsel that the
impugned order is passed in a mechanical manner without proper
application of mind.
17. The judgments cited by the learned Advocate General are on
the point that as per relevant provisions of the Education Act, the
claim of colleges can be considered and department is competent to
undertake the aforesaid exercise. There cannot be any quarrel on
this aspect. The impugned order is liable to be interfered with for
the singular reason that it talks about criterion and principle, but
does not show its application on the claim of each of the appellants.
18. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution is basically concern with the validity and correctness of
the decision making process. It is within the province of the
department to take a decision regarding demand about change of
intake of seats and merger of courses. This Court cannot sit in an
appeal to decide the aforesaid aspects. We have no hesitation to say
that this Court has no expertise on aforesaid aspects and the
respondent Department is best suited to take a decision on the
aforesaid aspects.
SP,J & RRN,J
Wa_953_2024 & batch
19. So far as decision making process is concerned, as noticed
above, it runs contrary to the principles of natural justice. There is
no finding as to why the approvals given by AICTE and JNTUC were
to be discarded. No reason is assigned as to why the particular
claim of the appellants could not find favour with the respondents.
The 'reasons' are held to be heart beat of 'conclusions'. In absence
of 'reasons', 'conclusion' cannot sustain judicial scrutiny (see
M/s.Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan 4).
20. Since the impugned order is passed without examining the
case of each of the appellants on the anvil of relevant parameters
flowing from the Education Act, the same cannot sustain judicial
scrutiny. The learned single Judge, in our opinion, has erred in not
examining the validity of impugned order dated 26.07.2024 on the
touchstone of principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in
Mohinder Singh Gill (supra). The impugned order was required to
be examined solely on the basis of reasons mentioned in that order.
Consequently, the order of learned single Judge dated 09.08.2024
and the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 are set aside. The
Higher Education Department is directed to consider the claims of
each of the appellants and take a fresh decision in accordance with
law expeditiously.
(2010) 9 SCC 497
SP,J & RRN,J
Wa_953_2024 & batch
21. During the course of hearing, it is informed that at present,
spot and sliding counselling is going on. In this backdrop, we deem
it proper to direct the respondents 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 counselling may be
appropriately modified so that a meaningful consideration of each of
the appellants' claim takes place.
22. With the aforesaid observations and without expressing any
opinion on merits, the Writ Appeals are disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________
SUJOY PAUL, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 13.08.2024
Note: Issue CC today.
B/o. TJMR/TSR
