The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased direct the 4th respondent alow the petitioner to pay the examination fee and to appear for hell St- semester of MBA course examinations pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. JYOTHI ESWAR GOGINENI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR HteHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER 0 THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR . WRIT PETITION No. 4527 of 2024 - ORDER; This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: "...to issue an appropiate u.tit, order or direction more speciallg one in tle nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring tle action of tle respondents in not consideing the petitioner's admission for tlrc scLeme of fee reimbursem.ent in MBA course studging in the 4th respondent college following ttrc guidelines tssued bA the 2nd and 3d respon-dents i.s illegal, arbitrary and unjust and contrary to tLe articles 14, 19 & 21 of constitution of India and consequentlg declare the guidelines framed for fee reimbursement bg tle 2"d and 3ra respondent is against the spirit of Article 371D of Constitution of India as well as G.O.P.No.646, dated 10.07.1979 and dtrect the responl.ent 7 to 4 to consider tLe petitioner admi.ssion for the schem.e of fee reimbursement in MBA (nurse in tle 4n respondent college and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court mag deem fit and. proper.."

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader fot Higher Education and learned I I 1 Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respective respondents, and perused the record.

3. Petitioner contends that she is a permalent resident of State of Telangana, having born and brought up in Hyderabad and also having studied up to 10th class in Hyderabad; and that she had pursued her further studies at Vij ayawada in the State of Andhra Pradesh only on account of her mother being posted in the State of Andhra Pradesh upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.

4. Petitioner further contends that after completing her intermediate and graduation at Vijayawada, she had appeared for the common entrance examination of ICET conducted by the Directorate of Higher Education, and secured admission into MBA Course for the academic year 2023-24 on merit rank and was allotted free seat in the +tn respondent-College' It is also the further case of the petitioner that on 5. securing admission into the 4th respondent-College, she is entitled to be granted with the benefit of fee reimbursement as per the Post Matric Schotarships and Fee Reimbursement v 3 Scheme for post matric students who are studying 1n government ald recognized institutions in the State of Telangala

6. Petitioner further contends that in spite of her being a permanent resident of the State of Telangana, and being the native of Hyderabad, the benelit of the said scheme is not being granted to her and is being calted upon to .pay the full fee. Thus, the action of the respondents, in parLicular, respondent Nos.2 & 3 in not granting fee reimbursement on the ground that as per the guidelines issued, the petitioner would not be eligible for such reimbursement as she had pursued her qualifying examination and also the intermediate in t.lle State of Andhra Pradesh, it is contended as being contrary to the spirit of Article 371D of the Constitution of India as well as G.O.P.No.646, dt. 10.O7 . 197 9.

7. Petitioner further contends that though she was expecting for grant of fee reimbursement as per the scheme, the 4tr, respondent informed her that since, she studied the preceding course i.e. graduation in the State of Andhra pradesh, she is not entitled to fee reimbursement as per the guidelines and as \ \ ) .t '.:.-.r 4 such she is required to pay the college fee of R.4O,0OO/-, failing which she would not be allowed to pay the examination fee for the 1"t semester.

8. Petitioner further contends that as per Section 95 of the A.P. Reorgan ization Act, 2014, there is a protection for a period of 10 years in relation to education matters, and as such the petitioner is entitled to be granted with the benefit of fee reimbursement scheme. g, It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondents-authorities cannot use Article 37lD of Constitution of India and G.O.P-No.646, dt. lO-O7.1979, as basis to deny the benefit of fee reimbursement, since, the presidential order under Article 37 lD is confined only to admission/studies, so also the G'O. issued in exercise o[' powers conferred under the said article.

10. Thus, the petitioner claims the action of the respondents in not granting fee reimbursement to be illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrar5r to Articles 14, 19 and 2l of the Constitution of India. o 5 I

11. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos'2 & 3 is filed. By the counter a-ffrdavit, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that consequent to bifurcation of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into the State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Telangana and having regard to the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, in particular reference of Section 95 of the said Act, whereby access to Higher Education was continued for a period of ten (10) years during which the existing common admission process was to be continued, petitioner was provided with admission into MBA course on the basis of common entrance examination.

12. By the counter affidavit, it is also contended that though the petitioner had secured admission in the 4th respondent- College on the basis of the common entrance examination held, the petitioner cannot be extended with the benefit of fee reimbursement as the petitioner did not study wholly or any part of the four consecutive academic years in any educational institutions by residing in the local area at the time of appearing for the relevant qualifying examination i.e., ICET- 2024 for her to be treated as a local candidate. I i I 6

13. By the counter affidavit it is further contended that the benefrt of fee reimbursement is extended only to local candidates and the petitioner having studied last four years in the State of Andhra Pradesh, she does not fit into ttre definition of 'local candidate'as per the Scheme of the State Government, which has been brought into force post-bifurcation of the State.

14. By the counter af{idavit it is further stated that upon bifurcation of the State, in the meeting of the Principal Secretaries and Heads of the Departments of both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh Governments held on 01.06.2015 to discuss the issues as raised by the Centre for Good Governance(CGG) relating to sanction of post matric scholarships, it was agreed between the two States that where a candidate is not a local candidate, the relevant State shall pay the scholarship treating him as an outstationed candidate, which has been explained by way of illustration stating that if a student, who is local to Telangana State, is pursuing studies in a College in the State of Andhra Pradesh, shall be given scholarship by the State of Telangana, and vice versa. f o 7

15. It is also contended that since, the petitioner having studied her intermediate and also having completed graduation course in the State of Andhra Pradesh, she would be considered as out stationed candidate of Andhra Pradesh State and it is only the State of Andhra Pradesh, which is required to extend the benefit of Post Matric Scholarship under the Scheme.

76. By the counter affidavit it is contended that since, the petitioner being a out stationed student, belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh, she cannot be considered as a local candidate for being extended with the beneht as made available to the local candidates in the State of Telangana. t7 . By the counter afhdavit it is also contended that if at all any scheme prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh, petitioner is required to approach the concerned authorities of the said State and cannot seek for being extended with the benefit as available to the loca-l candidates in the State of Telangana.

18. Thus, on the basis of the above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the Writ Petition E 19, I have taken note of the respective submissions made' 20. Firstlg, it is to be noted that the Scheme of Fee Reimbursement to the local students is a policy decision framed by the State and is neither part of Article 37 lD or Section 95 of the A.P. Reorganization Act' 2014' 21. lt is a scheme framed by the State with policy providing for fee reimbu-rsement and confining the scheme benefit only to a particular category, which in the facts of the present case to a local candidates, in order to claim benefirt thereunder' one has to fall within the parameters laid down in the said policy' 22. As per the policy' in order to be considered as a local candidate, one need to reside in the State of Telangana and have studied for:r consecutive academic years in any educational institutions situated in the State of Telangana at the time of appearing for the relevant qualifying examination' 23. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pursue her studies i'e" preceding four consecutive academic years in anY educational institutions situated in the State of Telalgana by residing in the local area at the time of appearing for lCtrT 2024' and as such' 9 the petitioner does not qualify for being considered as a local candidate.

24. Once, the petitioner did not meet the criteria to claim fee reimbursement for considering her as a loca-l candidate, notwithstanding her claim of having born and brought up in the State of Telangana being the native of Hyderabad, would not make her eligible to claim the benefit under the Scheme.

25. Though it is contended that as per Article 371D of Constitution of India read with Section 95 of A.P. Reorganization of Act, 2014, equal opportunities in the matters of higher education shall be continued for a period of (10) years, it is to be noted that the same is in relation to provision of admission and not in relation to extending any other benefits in the form of scholarship or fee reimbursement scheme. 26 Further, upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into the State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Telalgana, both the State Governments in the meeting held between the Principal Secretaries and Head of Department's of Telangana having agreed to extend the benefit of fee i I I j 1 I I i i : 1 i t i i i I I i ::10:: reimbursement on the basis of the local status of the students i.e., local candidate of the particular State or out stationed candidate studying in another State, the petitioner' who did not pursue her studies in preceding four consecutive academic years in any educational institutions situated in the State of Telangala by residing in the local area at the time of appearing for the relevant qualifying examination, is to be treated as out of station candidate studying in the State of Telangana' and thus, cannot claim to be conferred with the benefit of fee reimbursement introduced by the State of Telangana' 27 . On the other hand, the petitioner ought to have approached the State of Andhra Pradesh for gralt of such benefit by treating her as out of station candidate

28. Further, though the petitioner by the present Writ Petition had sought for a declaration as to the guidelines framed for fee reimbursement by the State of Telangana as being against the spirit of Article 37 lD of the Constitution of India' as noted hereinabove, the Scheme of fee reimbursement is a policy decision framed by the Government of Telalgana and it is for the State to decide as to whom such benefit should be extended /,/ ./ ./ ::11:: or would apply, and th€ State having taken a decision to extend the benefit only to a local candidates, who having studied four consecutive academic years in any educational institutions in the State of Telangana by residing in the local area at the time of appearing for the relevant qualifying examination, the said guideline framed by the Government cannot be held as arbitrary, irrational or violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

29. It is trite law that Courts should not interfere with the policy decisions of the State, unless and until it is found that the policy decision is palpably arbitrary, malalide, irrational or violative of statutory provisions[See: Yamuna Expressuag Industlizl Deuelopment Authorttg, etc. v, Sho,kuntla Educa;tlon and Welfare Socletg and Others'1.

30. Further, it is also trite law that Courts should not substitute the judicial view by examining the integrity of the policy, unless and until it is shown that the policy decision is per se r/ unconstitutional, ii/ dehors the provisions of the Act and the regulations, ffil delegatee has acted beyond its power of ' 2022 scc onlihe 655\ t)' t r 2il2:i delegation, and iu) executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy [Seej DDA u. Jolnt Action Committee, Allottee o/S.FS Flr,ts2l.

31. In the facts of the present case, though the petitioner had sought to declare the guidelines framed for fee reimbursement insofar as it restricting only to local candidates, wh_ich is confined to the State of Telangana, tJ.e said decision of the State cannot be said as falling within any of the aforementioned four grounds, for it to be examined by this Court.

32. Thus, this Court is of the considered rriew that the challenge in the present writ petition to the fee reimbursement scheme to the local candidates as framed by the State of Telangana, cannot be held as unconstitutional or the guidelines framed there under extending the benefit only to local candidates, who had studied preceding four consecutive academic years in any educational institutions in the State of Telangana bv residing in the local area at the time of appearing for the relevant qualifying examination, cannot be held as arbitrary and illegal. ' (2oo9) 2 scc 672 { { q ::13::

33. In view of the above, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and has to fail.

34. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs

35. Consequently, rriiscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.L.LAKSH DEPUTY RE BABU ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER at Hyderabad [OUT] 1 9n" QQ to Mls. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Higher Education, High Court frjr the Siate of Telangana, 3. Two CC to The GP for Social Weffare, High Court for the State of Tetangana, 4. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad[OUT] To, TJ LS M HIGH GOURT DATED:2710312025 ORDER WP.No.4527 of 2024 r I :) :) J'L , r.F- S'[*i t ( C ,l 2 E Frl :r25 i- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1b \0