1. Uppuleti Raj v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased o issue a Writ or order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 winding up the 4th Respondent lnstitution for Boys and shifting the institution and merging with TSWRSJC/Gowlidoddi, TSWRSJC/ Chilkur, Ranga Reddy District and TSWRSJC/ Mahindra Hills, Medchal Malkajgiri District violating G,O.Ms. No. 78, Dated 13-10-2006 and the 2nd Respondent has not taken any consent of the petitioners who are parents of the students herein and directly insisting the students to give their options to other lnstitutions is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. The 2nd Respondent is directly merging the 4th Respondent lnstitution with other institutions without obtaining permission from the Government. Therefore the action of the 2nd Respondent in winding up 4th Respondent lnstitution and merging with other lnstitutions which are situated 150 Km away in other districts is illegal, arbitrary and Violation of FundamentalRights of the Karimnagar District People. Therefore the Hon'ble High Court may pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent not to shift 4th Respondent lnstitution and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to continue the petitioners children studies for Academic Year 2025-26 in 4th Respondent lnstitution at Karimnagar District Only and run the institution in the Karimnagar District of the North Telangana in the interest of the Karim Nagar District Public lA NO: 1 OF 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 to -,5, ,"*, { 't ".s! direct the 2nd Respondent not to shift the 4th Respondent lnstitution for Boys to other Districts and continue studies of the petitioner's children in 4th Respondent lnstitution and run the institution in the Karimnagar District of the North Telangana and bending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. M. KRUPAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER - ----v HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A ON No. L629A of 2O25 ORDER: Petitioner No. I statcs that undcr G.O.Ms.No.7B, the Government sanctioncd thrce Bnglistr-medium institutions for SC students from Class VIII to lr:rtermediate II Year, starting in 20O6-07, n'ith orrc located in Karimnagar. His son, Mr.Uppclcti [?aj, st.trciiccl Ml)C [st Year during 2024- 25 at the 3'd Responclcnt Institution (vvrongly mentioned as 4th respondent in thc petitioncrs affidavit). On 24.05.2025, 2'd respondent issued a ntorno r^egarding the re-adjustment of I[ Year studcnrs atrd rclcascd a list of new institutions without prior: noticc. [i-urr't-hcrmorc, a circular dated

24.o4.2025 ini'itin{,, ir J.rPi i.i ir ir;r r.-; lbr aclrnissions for 2o2s- 26 excluded thc Kai'itrura.qilr cotl, cicarly indicating its closure. No conscnt \\'as oirtaincd fronr the petitioners, who are parents of thc stLr(lcnts, ancl the students were unilaterally askecl to c:l'roosc orhcr institutions. petitioners 2, 3, and 4 al.so surbmit tl-rzit thcir sons, currently studying at the Jrcl Qg5pondent InstiIt.rLion, arc bcing shifted without notice or conscnt. Tlrc: t.iosLrrr: and rncrger are arbitrar]/, illegal, contran' Io (i.(r.\'[s.i{ri. /8, zrnd against pubric :l NI]K.J wP-t6290 2025 lnterest' The mergcr, cerrried out without Government approval, shifts studcnts over 150 km away and infringes upon thc rights of the stu.dents and people of Karimnagar District' Thcreforc, petitir)ners prayed this court to direct Respondent No.2 .ot to shift the 3d Respondent Institution and to ailorv their crrildren to continue their education for the academic year 2025-26 in Karimnagar District.

2. Heard Mr.tfturpakar, learned counsel for the petitioncrs and lcarnccl Additi.nal Advocate Generar flor respondr-.nts. perusccl the record. 3' ['ca..ccr c.unscl for rcspondents filcd a countor affida'it stati.g Lhr:rc is no proposar to mcrge or winci up any Respondenr tnsritution. The TGsWREI society is re. desigrrating it:; Prcrnier ccntres of Exceflence frorn 2o2s-26 to focus on spccific streams (IIT-JEE, NEE'., .M,A-.LAT) for MPC, [Jpc, and iv,Li)c/crrc groups, enhancing teaching with spcciarizecr facr-rlt-v. cotl Al,gr.rnoor is now a premicr Girls' i. stiLr.rLi,n f 'r. MpC, and male students fiom l ,th standard, II Mpc, :-rrrd II Bpc were transferred to similar premier i.stitutions ((iowlidoddi and chilkur) with full flacilitics m,inratirrcri.'r'hr: crccision folrowed consurtations NBK,J wP 16290 2025 with coordinators, principals, staff, er.rrd parents, inctuding virtual meetings ancl willingncss lct.ters from petitioners' sons. The shift addrcsses cmor.ional and academic concerns relatcd to co cducatii-rn, which affected concentration and rcsulLs. Additional premier boys, institutions have bccn upgradcd r,rrilfr more seats, ensuring no loss of opportunities. out of l:25 students, 115 have joined new institutions. 'lhis initiative aims to improve outcomes through focused collchinE and better resources with merit-based admissions. Thc ac:r.ions are lawful and in the students' bcst inLcrcsr. so il ri. pctition should be dismissed.

4. Considering thc submissirn:; made by both the learned counscl and a pcrusar of .irc records, it is clear that the actions chatlcr-rgccl erffroLurr to a policy decision made by the competcnt authoriL-r', tlrc TGSWREI socie$r, to reorganize its Prcmicr ccnrrcs of l.,r:t:c[[cncc with a. focus on specializcd actrdcrnic srrcar,-is and to improve educational <lutcomcs. Such polic-1, rlr:cisions, particularly in the field of educational adminisLr-ation, fall exclusively within the domairr .[ thc Statc i.rCl its a.gencies. It is ,l NBK.J wP_ 16290_2025 further notccl that. l.he rcsporclents have shown the decision was madc aftcr consulting stakeholders, ensuring adequate facilities, a,d upgrading other institutions to accommodate the afl'ccted students without limiting their educational opportunities. There is no evidence of illegality or arbitrarincss thar. w,oulcl justify judicial interference. Thereforc, thr: r,r,rit pctitio. is liable to be dismissed on the ground thert thc irnpugned actions are bona fide administrativc arnd poticy dccisions made in the best interest of thc studcnt.s ancl education.

5. Accordingl-v, th,: 'uvrit petition is clismissed. There shall be no ordcr as [o costs. MisccllancoLrsi irpprications pe,ding, if o,.y, sharl stand closccl. ,,,2 SD/. A .JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. M. KRUPAKAR, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies BM TKS frvtfi. HIGH COURT ATED:14lO712025 ORDER WP.No.16290 of 2025 , trE1 TAs 1 7 JAN 2[26 Cr C) * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS rs\r,-\>(