High Court · 2025

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 to issue a Writ, order or direction' more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the Respondents-2 and 3 in endorsing as ineligible in Annexure P-16 depriving his candidature for admission into Engineering under graduate course in Sports quota. as per G.o. Ms. No. 2, youth Advancement, Tourism and curture (Sports) Department dated 22-0g-2020, as arbitrary and iflegar, contrary to the principres of Naturar Justice and viorates the Articles, 14 and 'r 6 0f the constitution of India set aside the same and consequen y direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to consider his candidature under sports quota and grant admission to the petitioner into Engineering course. lA NO: 4 oF 2024 Petition under section r 5 r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 to 6 to consider the candidature of the petitioner into Engineering under priority Sports code 45 0r 57 in sports Quota in top coreges in terms of the interim orders dated 12.08.2024 passed by this Hon,bre court in the above Writ petition IANO:3O F 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to amend the writ prayer by dereting the "the action of the Respondents of 2 & 3 in endorsing as "inerigibre", beginning at Line No.4 by substituting ,,decraring priority list of candidates prepared by the scrutiny committ6e/6th Respondent endorsing the decision of the Respondents 2 & 3 in showing ,ih" putition",. ", ineligible", by dereting "Respondents 2 & 3', and substitute the Respondents 2 to 6 at Line No' 1 1' and arso by adding the paragraphs-3 to 10 0f the affidavit as paragraphs 20(a) to 20(h) to the writ affidavit. IA NO: 1 0F 2024 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 pleased to direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to consider the candidature of the Petitioner into Engineering course under sports quota. as per G.O. Ms. No. 2, dated 20'02 2020, by suspending the Annexure p-16 pending disposar of the above Writ petition. counserf orthePetition"''SXl$:JlR[i[fi xR,f"TrttfrtJ'oRcouNsEL' Counsel for the Respondent No'1 : SRt N'GANGADHAR' GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No'2&3 : SMT'C'VANI' SC FOR TCHE Counsel for the Respondent No'5 : SC FOR JNTU Counsel for Respondent No'4'6&7 : THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Cquft made the following: ORDER t L THE HON'BTE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Wri n 21 t 4 ORDER This Writ petition is filed with the following prayer; 2 " "...to issue a Writ, order natureorwr*o,runou,,i.oo'*1if"l":fi .Iff :'J#ilJt; and 3 in endorsing as ineligible in Annexure plG depriving his candidature for admission i Engineering under graduate course In sports quota as per G-o.r,, ls No 2 Youth Advancement rourism and culture spots Department [ff.i]::.'j::J;j:::1LLij.:Tl contrary to rhe prncp,es ", and 16 of the Constitutic of India' set aside the $rns 3n6 consequenry diregt 169 *tn :..H; :: ;:';:1L J: ca ndidatu re u nder sports r r"til:tT. into Engineering course and such other order or orders as this Hon'bre court may deem ,,.,, 'utt Heard Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senigr Counsel representing Sri N.Gangadhar. learned counsel for the petition"., lu.rn"d Government pleader for Education appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel fr r Higher Education appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU appearing for respondent No.5 and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 andperused the record. 3. Briefly stated. the case of the petitioner is that he had sought admission into B_Tech Engineering Under Graduate Course in Computer r 2 .\ Science under Spofts Quota as per G.O.Ms.No.2 Youth Advancement Tourism Culture (Sports) Department dt.2Z.O9.ZO20; and ttrit tfre candidature for admission into the aforesaid course under Sports Quota has been rejected by categorizing as "not eligible,,.

4. Petitioner contends that he had completed his Secondary School during the year 2027-22, and thereafter, intermediate education during the year 2023-24 and wrote the common entrance test titied as 'Telangana State Engineering Agriculture and pharmacy Common Entrance Test2024 (TS-EAPCAT-2024) held on 09.05.2024 and secured a rank of 15884; that on getting qualified in the common entrance test, he had sought for admission into Engineering course in computer science under Sports Quota, as he had participated in many Ctress Championships and won Medals and Merit Certificates; and that having participated in various chess championships, the petitioner's candidature fdr admission into Engineering course in computer science under sports Quota should have been assigned priority at Serial No.45 or 57, as per G.O.Ms.No.2, having taken part in Asian youth Chess Championship held during the year 2079, wherein he was placed as Champion and also having participated in the World youth Chess Championship, 2019, and having won the 3'd place therein making him eligible to be considered under priority Serial Nos.6 and B of G.O.Ms.No.2, dt.22.O|.2O2O. 3

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that despite the petitioner being awarded the titre of 'Internationar Master chess champion, for the year 2019 by FIDE - Gens una sumus and on the petitioner achieving the aforesaid recognition, the 4h respondent had arso fericitated him and presented a cash award of Rs.1,00,000/_, he has been shown as.Not eligible'in the provisional list released by the Respondent No.5. 6' Petitioner further contends that under G.o.Ms.No.2, guiderines for admission into professional courses, like engineering, agriculture etc., under Sports Quota have been issued; that as per Guideline No.5 of the said G.o., priorities shail be accorded to candidates basing on their best performance of rast five years verifuing the genuineness of certificates; that as per Guideline 5(e), the participation in open tournament/invitation tournament/unauthorized meets which are not mentioned in the G.o. wiil not be considered; that as per Clause 5(f) of the aforeslif G.O., any international achievement/participation may be considered when onry such certificate was issued by the competent authority who had conducted the event; and that based on the aforesaid guidelines, priorities are to be accorded as specified in serial No.6 of the aforesaid G.P., which provides for particulars of tournament and championship which would be considered in order to seek admission under Sports Quota. e It is the further case of the petitioner that in order to veriry as to 7. whether a pafticular student seeking admission under Sports Quota to undergraduate professional course is eligible or not' a Scrutiny Committee has been constituted consisting of Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the 4th respondent as Chairman' 3 Technical members of the 4th respondent nominated by the Vice Chairman and the Managing Director of the 4th respondent and 2 Technical officials nominated by the concerned University/institution who is conducting the admission test' in the particular Year. It is contended that as per Clause B of the aforesaid G'O'' the 8. certificates and testimonials of achievement submitted by the candidate shall be scrutinized by the scrutiny committee, in accordance with the priority system indicated in the table mentioned at Serial No'6 of the aforesaid G.O. and shall forward the recommendations to\ the Evaluation Committee consisting of Principal Secretary to Government' YAT & C (S) Department, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the 4th respondent' Commissioner of Technical Education and Commissioner/Registrar of the concerned University, which had conducted the admission test in the particular course for the year; and that he list of the selected candidates approved by the Evaluation Committee shall be Final and forwarded to the concerned University/Institution for admission under sports Quota' 5

9. petitioner contends that while the aforesaid G.O. prescribes the detaired procedure to be fo,owed For identirying the candidates for being provided with admission into professionar courses based on their achievement in the respective sports, which are mentioned in Serial No.4 of the aforesaid G.O., the 5th respondent without properly verifying the participation of the petitioner in the sport/game discipline i.e. Chess, which finds mention at seriar No'g of the 31 sports disciprines mentioned in the Table in Clause 4 of the said G.O., had declarect the petitioner as 'not eligible, for admission under Sports euota. 10. Petitioner further contends that on the 5th respondent displaying the provisionar priority rist of sports category candidates on its website subiect to confirmation by the 4fr respondent on 06.ag.2024, wherein at serial No.39 of the said rist, against the petitioner,s name, it is shown as 'not erigibre" the petitioner's father had sent an e-mail to thd rpspondents detailing the achievements secured by the petitioner in the game/sport of chess and sought for reconsideration of the petitioner,s candidature for being provided with admission into Engineering Course under Sports Quota, as the petitioner had taken part in the preceding 5 years in International Event and secured Bronze Medal under the category Junior/ Youth World Champion/Cup/youth Olympics mentioned at Serial No.6 of Clause 6 of G,O.Ms.No.2 and also having taken part in Junior/youth Asian championship/cup/Asian Games and having secured Gord Medar therein, v'1 -.1 6 which finds mention at Serial No'8 of Clause 6 of the G'O' dealing with priorities and instead' the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner for being granted admission under Sports Quota as 'not eligible'.

11. It is also contended by the petitioner that the 5b respondent had displayed provisional priority list of candidates eligible for admission into Engineering Course even before the list of candidates is approved by the Evaluation Committee approving the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee as constituted under Clause B of the G'O'' and thus' the entire provisional priority list of candidates as declared by the 5th respondent is vitiated and is not in accordance with the G'O'' under which admission of candidates into Engineering Course is to be made and thus' the entire smacK of process of selection of candidates under Spofts Quota \ transparency and is thus, liable to be set aside' 12. Separate counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos'2 and 3 and respondent Nos'4, 6 andT are filed'

13. Respondent Nos'2 and 3 by their counter-amdavit' it is contended that Guidelines have been issud vide G'O'Ms'No'74 dt'28'07'2011 for admission of students into professional courses in unaided non-minority institutions; that as per the Guidelines laid down in G'O'Ms'No'74' half percent of seats are reserved for sports and Games candidates; that a 7 candidate claiming reservation benefit of sports and games category is required to produce originar documents in sport of their craim to the Convener; and that the original document/certificate on the basis of which, candidate is claiming reservation under Sports discipline are required to be sent for scrutiny and confirmation by the vice Chairman and Managing Director, Sports Authority of Telangana (SATG), the 4th respondents herein.

14. By the counter_affidavit, respondent Nos.2 and 3 further contended that the 5h respondent on conducting Common Entrance Test for Admission during the academic year 2024-25, insofar as the seats reserved for Sports and Games candidates are concerned, made a request to the 4h responden! who deputed its Officers on 06.07.2024 to 08'07'2024 for verification of the certificates of the candidates seeking admission into Engineering Course under seats reserved yor Sports and Games candidate; that the officers deputed hy the 4b respondent verified the certificates with original certificates and co,ected set of xerox copies for further scrutiny, and verification and to award priorities to the candidates as per the Guidelines laid down in G.O.Ms.No.2 dt.22.09.2020; that the 4h respondent after completion of verification by the Scrutiny committee, communicated list of eligible candidates on 26.07.2024 arong with priorities awarded, wherein against the name of the petitioner, it is marked as 'not eligible' which has been displayed by the 5th respondent e 8 '.1 on its website and informed the candidates through SMS and through website.

15. By the counter-affidavit' it is further stated that the petitioner differing with the decision of the 4th respondent had approached Convener - the 5th respondent and the 4h respondent to consider his certificatesandawardpriorityundersportsquotaforallotmentofseau that the representation received by the 5th respondent through mail was forwarded to the 4th respondent for further necessary action; that the 4th respondent had re-examined all such differed cases and communicated final list, in which also, the name of the petitioner was marked as ineligible and the same was again published through website'

16. By the counter-affidavit, respondent Nos'2 and 3 contended that the 5n respondent had displayed the priorities as comm\nicated by the 4s respondent, in its website and consider the same foi'allotment of seats under Sports quota and the 5th respondent does not have any role in awarding priorities as per their merit; and that the allotment of seats for first phase of students was made on 19'07'2024 as per the general merit lisU and that the 'petitioner as per general merit list has secured allotment in computer science in Engineering (c'sc') in cvsR-Anurag University and paid tuition fee and reported through online on 27 '07 '2024 to retain the allotted seat' 9

17. By the counter_affidavit, it is further contended that this Court had issued interim direction on 72.0g.2024, by which time, the final phase of allotment was compreted on 11.0g.2024, and in obedience of the interim directions of this Court. an e_mail was sent to the petitioner informing him the college-wise. branch-wise list of vacancies in Sports Quota and requested to give options by 22.08.2024; and that the petitioner did not give any option from the available vacancies in Sports quota, but requested to allot seat, which are earmarked for Centralized internal sliding candidates, who had already joined in the college, on merit and insofar the request made by the petitioner to consider his case as failing under priority sports quota 45 or 57 is concerned, since, it is the 4th respondent who is competent authority to take a decision on sports priorities as per G.O.MS.No.2, the 5th respondent cannot take any decision on the said request.

18. By the counter, it is also contended that since, the entire admission process has been completed by 2g.0g.2024, and class work has commenced' as there being no vacancies in the cofleges and branches for which the petitioner had , made request, are not earmarked for sports quota seats, thus, his request cannot be considered. 19. Respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7, by their counter_affidavit, it is contended that in order to be eligible to secure admission under Sports I l t I I 10 i l Quota, a candidate is required to follow the guidelines prescribed under G.O.Ms'No.2; and that the ceftificates mentioned by the petitioner in para B of the writ affidavit do not correspond to the criteria set out in G.O.Ms.No.2 dl'22'Og'2020 making him eligible to be considered for seeking admission under Sports Quota' 20. By the counter-affidavit' it is contended that the counselling for admission under Sports Quota was conducted between 06'07 '2024 and OB.O7.2024,wherein the petitioner had submitted ceftificates relating to his participation in (1) Telangana under 13 Open and Girls Chess Championship 2018 held from 16'05'2018 to 18'05'2018 and secured Nil position; (2) 30 Second National under 13 open and Girls Chess Championship 2018 organized by Gujarat State Chess Association on behalf of All India Chess Federation from 14'06'2018 to 22'06'2018 and having secured second place; (3) Asian Youth Chess Championship 2019 under l4-year open category of the Chess Tournament held at Srilanka organized by the Chess Federation of Srilanka from 03'04'2019 to 09.04.2019, wherein.he had secured place -'Champion'; and (4) under- 14 open category of World Youth Championship 2019 held at Mumbai from 02.10.2019 to 12.10.2019, wherein he had secured third place'

27. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that insofar as the petitioner's claim of participating in the Chess Championship mentioned at 11 Serial No.1 and Serial No.4 is concerned, he did not furnish the said certificates; and that the petitioner did not submit the authentic ceftificates of having taken part in the chess championship mentioned at Serial No.2 above, the key signatures of the Secretary are missing in the said certificate implying the said certificate is illegitimate. 22. By the counter-affidavit, insofar as the petitioner,s participation in the Chess Championship held at Srilanka, Serial No.3 above, is concerned, it is contended that the A, India chess Federation did not mention that the first place is equivalent to 'Champion, nor given any score to the player pertaining to the said 'champion,, and hence, the scrutiny and Evaluation Committee could not give any score technically to the said certificate.

23. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that as per G.o.Ms.No.2 priorities mentioned for Asian youth championship in seriar No.B is concerned, against the said priority eligibility for championship is considered for every 2 or 4 years only but since, the said championship is being conducted every year, the priority of participation in the above championship cannot be considered.

24. By the counter-affidavit, similar contention is also taken in respect of priorities mentioned for World Youth Championship in Serial No.6 of Clause 6 of the aforesaid G.O. t2 -Irrl\"-*1 ''.1 By contending as above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the

25. Writ Petition.

26. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged' 2T.Thepresentcaseisclassicexampleoftheapathybeingshown to encourage spofts in the country and the Spoftsmen being subjected to mercy of people at the helm of affairs of the so-called Sports Authorities' which exist in the name of promotion of the sports in this country, without they themselves having any expertise or knowledge of the said sport or game.

28. The claim of the petitioner for securing admission into Engineering Course has been rejected by the respondent initially on the ground of they themselves not being able to differentiate as to what constitutes open tournament and open category' While 'open toulnament' is a tournament wherein participation is allowed for boys and girls, while 'open category' is a tournament which is not recognized' Despite .i G.o.Ms.No.2dt.z2.og.2o2oinClause5(e)specifiesthatparticipationin open tournament/invitation tournamen{unauthorized meet which are not mentioned in the G.O., will not be considered as eligible for seeking admission under Sports Quota, at Serial No'6 of the aforesaid G'O'' various tournaments/championships, numbering to 25' have been specified for which priority has been accorded and in Serial No'4' about 13 31 spots disciplines have been notified for which priorities have been specified in Serial No.6 and Chess is one of the sports discipline which finds mention at Serial No.g therein.

29. Insofar as the prioritizing of the candidates based on the participation in any one of the 31 games notified at Serial No.4 of the aforesaid G.O. and also as to their achievement is concerned, firstly, it is the scrutiny committee consisting of the members as constituted under Clause B of the G.O., is required to prepare the priority list, and make a recommendation to the Evaluation Committee, consisting of members as specified in Clause B(b) of the aforesaid G.O. Though respondent Nos.2 and 3, and 4, 6 and 7 by their counter_affidavits have claimed of having deputed officials of the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent from 06.07.2024 to 08.07.2024 and they having collected the certificates from the candidates who are seeking admission under Sports qluOta ana tne Scrutiny Committee having scrutinized the said certificates and according priority based on the certificates, the documents annexed to the counter_ affidavit filed by respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 would show that the Scrutiny Committee as well as the Evaluation Committee had completed the exercise of verifying the certificates in a lackadaisical manner without even waiting for the clarification that had been sought by them from the All India Chess Federation with regard to the participation of the petitioner in various tournaments. in order to consider the claim of 74 X petitioner to be eligible for being considered either under priority serial Nos.6 or B of Clause No.6 of the aforesaid G'O'

30. The fact of the 4ff respondent seeking clarification from All India Chess Federation itself indicates that the 4h respondent did not have any knowledge about the game, participation, its position, ranking and recognition. The 4th respondent which is bestowed with the duty to veriff the certificates of the candidates seeking admission under Sports Quota, could not have furnished the provisional priority list of candidates who are eligible for admission under Sports category, even before it had obtained clarification from the concerned Sports Federation, like in the case of the petitioner, whereby against his name, it has been mentioned as 'not eligible', while All India Chess Federation by their letter dt.28.07.2024 having categorically stated of the petitioner representing the country in the World Youth Chess Championship 2019 held from Q2.10.2019 to lz.tl.2Llgand also having won Bronze Medal and also the f[rm I issued by them being valid, upon which, the 4b respondent having sought for a further clarification by its e-mail dt.30.07.2024 which had been duly clarified by the All India Chess Federation by its letter dt.02.08.2024. 3l . Further, the declaration of the candidates eligible to seek admission under Sports Quota, be it on 06.07.2024 as claimed by the petitioner or on 26.07.2024 as claimed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 by I - their counter-affidavit is prior to the 4th respondent seeking clarification from All India Chess Federation. If only the 4h respondent which is entrusted with the responsibility of verifiing the certificates of the candidates seeking admission under sports Quota, had entertained any doubt with regard to the certificate of the petitioner, it courd not have categorized him as not eligible at the first instance notuithstanding the fact that it could not have finalized the list having sought for a crarification from the AIr India chess Federation with regard to the participation of the petitioner. Further, if one goes through the provisionar rist of candidates as finarized by the 4th respondent and fonvarded to the 5h respondent, based on which, the 5th respondent claims to have provided admissions to students under Sports Quota, the petitioner would stand in the first place among all the candidates, who have been assigned priority of merit based on their participation and the positidn secured by them.

32. This only goes to show that the entire process is hurried up under the assumption that their actions wourd not be cared in question and it is only after the present challenge is made, the respondents are taking varying stands to justiry and cover up their omissions. 33. Insofar as the claim of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the petitioner having secured admission into C.Sc. branch of B.Tech Engineering -<i .t 16 course, based on his merit in a coflege and having paid tuition fees and also reporting, cannot and would not justify the omissions resulting in petitioner being deprived of his right to seek admission under Sports Quota having represented the country in World Youth Championship and also secured a Bronze Medal for the country'

34. The fact of the matter is that the 4h respondent itself having awardedacashpriceofRs.l,00,000/-tothepetitioneronhebeing declared as international master while his candidature for securing admissionintoB-Techcou6ebeingrejectingonthegroundof.not eligible' only goes to show that the 4th respondent lacks basic knowledge of the game / sPott.

35. However, the claims of the respondents that academic year having up their started, by itself cannot be an excuse for them to \cover omissions and commissions to deprive a student of h'is right and entitlement under G.O'Ms'No' 2'

36. Since, it is on account of the failure on the part of the 4th respondent in selecting the eligible candidates for admission into professional courses, based on the participation of the candidate in various sports discipline, this Court is of the view that a time has come to verifo as to whether such responsibility is to be entrusted to an irresponsible organization, like the 4th respondent' which is playing with 17 the lives of young students, who having taken part in various sports and also securing medals for the country like the petitioner. 37. Though on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, it has been contended that since, the academic year had commenced and arso the request oF the petitioner for sriding cannot be considered, this court is of the view that for no faurt of the petitioner, he cannot be made to suffer on account of the procedural embargo. 38. Further, the procedural embargo in relation to sliding being a hand made rule evolved by the respondents and not having any statutory force, this Court is of the view that such an embargo should not come in the way of this court mourding the rerief having come to a concrusion that on account of inemciencies on the part of the 4h respondent, based on which, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 having to act upon, has resulted in petitioner being denied admission into one of the best coregls.unoer the control of the 5h respondent, thereby, making him to suffer and securing admission into some other coflege based on his merit in the common entrance test.

39. One of the forms of granting relief in such cases where a candidate is made to suffer on account of the actions of the respondents _ State, is 18 I to award compensation' I See : Saniana Raghunath v' The Karnataka Examination Authority & otherl 'l 40. The Apex Court in the case of i'Krishna Sndha v/s' The State of Andhra Pradestl had held that where a candidate was found to be meritorious and approaching the Court at the earliest' the Court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase in the number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious candidate' in that case' the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year' meaning thereby, the studenVstudents who was/were denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic y"u' oLt'of the seats allotted in the management quota' Inthefactsofthepresentcase'|since'thepetitionerhadsecured 47. in a college affiliated to the 5th admission in the branch of C'Sc' respondent University, who otherwise would have secured admission in any of the top colleges including the 5s respondent College itself, this ' tvtlt!u/rn/:oss/zoza '(zozo) rz scc aes 19 court is of the view that a direction is to be issued to the respondents to accommodate the petitioner in the choice of coreges given by him at the time of seeking admission under sports Quota in the Branch of c.Sc. into whichever year he is presently pursuing either by increasing the seat or accommodating him in any existing vacant seat under convener quota on account of any drop outs or by increasing the number of seats by one in respect of seats reserved against the students who are to be admitted into second year directly on completion of polytechnic. 42' Insofar as the suffering meted out to the petitioner of not securing admission under Sports Quota and having secured admission as a regular student based on his merit ranking secured is to award compensation. If only the petitioner was given admission under Sports euota by considering his achievement in particular sports discipline, the petitioner could have secured admission as per his first choice of of,tion. Since, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to join in a college of his first preference and having secured admission based on his merit ranking, in the common entrance test conduced, this Court is of the view that the 4th respondent is to be directed to compensate the petitioner the difference of fee which the petitioner wourd have otherwise paid if he had secured admission into his choice of college as per his preference and the fee paid by him while securing admission in the cottege where he is presentlv sudying including transportatton fee' I 20 X

43. Accordingly, the petttioner is directed to furnish the details of the difference of fee and also Hansportation charged by the college where he is presently studying to the 4th respondent with a copy marked to respondent Nos'2, 3 and 5 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon the petitioner furnishing the detairs, the 4rh respondent is directed to pay the compensation as awarded by this Court within a period of four weeK from the date of receipt of the aforesaid details from the petitioner' 44. For the aforesaid reasons' the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above' 45 Miscellaneouspetitions,ifany,pendingshallstandclosed. SN'. A. SREENIVASA REDDY -- ASSISTEUT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// l"tto,u oFFtcER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department' Secretariat' State of Telangaha' HYderabad '

2.TheConvener,TSEAPCET-2024,JawahatlalNehruTechnologicalUniversity ' ifi#b;:'rir.rtpiitv' ivoeraoao 500 0B5 Telangana state' 3. The chief verification officer, Telangana council of Higher Education' -' 4. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director' S.ports Authority of Telangana' Oepartment of Technical Education' Hyderabad,' Lal Bahadur Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

5. The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University' Hyderabad' 6. The Scrutiny CommitteeA/ice-Chairman and lvlanaging - A;ihorit oi t'elangana Lal Bahadur Stadium, Basheerbagh The Evaluation committeeN ice-chairman and l\/anaging . nutnoiity offelangana, Lal Bahadur Stadium Basheerbagh, Hyderabad' one CC to SRI N.GANGADHAR, Advocale. IOPUCI , Hyderabad. 7 8 Director, SPorts Director, sports " ;y&:"?:J:3[fo* EDUcAroN, Hish court ror rhe state or reransana ar " Iy,:.33.r,r", Si.J,-3#rrEUER EDucAroN, High court ror rhe state or 1 t. One CC to SRr SC FOR JNTU. IOPUCI Iffi,8,n:?,+?3td?"3[fire cer.rennl, High court ror rhe State or l: '13.One CC to SRt. Advocate [OPUC]

14.Two CD Copies. BSK (A PVL I i I r HtcH couRT DATED:28 t|Tt2\2i ORDER WP.No.21538 of 2024 ! f I I o 16 sEP zffi a'. * n ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I ( t \ >f