1 . MGR Educational Society v. PET|T|ONERS

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RUBAINA S KHATOON Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI S.RAHUL RED)Y, Sl)L. cp Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC Fr:)R ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PRABHAKAR pERl, SC Fr:)R ATCTE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: M/s. C.VANI REDD'/, SC FOR TSCHE JNTUH W.P.NO: 23660 OF 2024 Between:

1. St. Martins Childrens Educational Society, Having cffice rrt H. No. 145, Geetha Nagar, Ferozguda, Secunderabad. Rep b! ils Vice president Mr. Gaddam ChanCra Shakar yadav 2. St. fVlartins Engineering College, Dhulapally Village, e rtbulla pur Mandal, R. , R. District. Re6 by its Executiv-e Directoi Mr. Gadd-am Crandri,i Shakar yadav 3. Mr. Gaddam Chandra Shakar Yadav, S/o Gaddam Dur<taiah 'radav. Aoed 63 years, Rl/o Pkrt No. 24, Sarchapuri Colony, New Bo,venpally Oid hirport Road, Phase 2, Tirumalgiri, Hydeiabad, Telahgana. AND .. PETITTONERS Registrar. 1 . State of Telang ana, Rep_by. its Principal Secretary, Highr:r Edu,:ation - Department, Sr:cretariatBuildings, Hyderabad 2. commissioner cf rechniqll Educatioh, Department of rechnic,l Education, - - '' ^ State.of Tela.ngana, 2nd Floor, Vidya Bhawan, Nampally Hyde.abad. 3. Jawaharlal Net,ru Technological Uhiversity, Hyderaliad, leflre,;ented by its 4. All lndia council for Technicar Education, lndira Gandhi {iport oomplex, I.p. 5. IelanganaStale Couhcil'for Higher Etiucation, pt Floor, ,JNTU r\4asab Tank - Represented brr its Secretary. 6. The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2024-25, Ground Floor. lndrrstrv A.cademv Collaboration Center (IACC), JNTU, Kukatpally, Teldngarra _'SC0 0gS.' Campus, Mahaveer_Marg, Opp- Mahaveer Hoipital, Masab Ta,rk, HyOerabaO. Estate, New Dr,lni.Rep bv its Secretarv. Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia pray ng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the lligh r)ourt may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more parr icurarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus- a.Declaring section 2t of trre Telangana ...RI=SPONDENTS Education Act, '1982 in the manner of its application by Respondent No' 1 in relation to the AIoTE approvals granted under section 10(1xk) of the AICTE Act, 1987 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and strike down the same for being violative of Article 254 of the Constitution of lndia b. Alternatively, read down Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 to hold that the said section could apply only in the manner of a prior educational survey undertaken before the commencement of the consideration process by the AICTE for fresh / renewal of applications for the ensuing Academic Year by bringing it in harmony with regulation 6.2 of AICTE Regulations read with section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987 as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme court of lndia in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. commr. and secy. to Govt. Higher Education Deptt., (2000) 5 scc 231 which remains valid law and c. Declaring the Memo dated 24.08.2024 bearing No. 1437- AfiElA2tzlz4 as arbitrary, unlaMul, malicious in law and unconstitutional and set aside the same and further direct the Respondents herein to treat the Petitioner lnstitution as a validly permitted, affiliated and approved lnstitution for the Academic Y ear 2024-25, for all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner lnstitution including the adjusted intake/increased intake in the course of B. Tech csE, B. Tech csE (AIML), B. Tech (Data Science) and B. Tech cslT as sanctioned and approved by the AICTE and the JNTU for the Academic Year 2024-25 and permit the Petitioner lnstitution to fill up the seats as per the AIGTE permitted intake for the Academic Year 2024-25 by directing the Respondents to either conduct a fresh mop-up round of counseling of the TGEAPCET for the Academic Year 2024- 25 or by permitting the Petitioners to fill up the seats through spot admissions. lA NO: 1 OF 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 to direct the Respondents to notify and permit admissions in all the courses offered by the Petitioner lnstitution with the full intake capacity as sanctioned and approved by the AICTE and the JNTU for the A.Y. 2024-25 including during the phase of spot Admissions of the TGEAPCET 2024-25 counselling pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under .Section 151 CPC praying that in the circums.ances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be p,ls2ss6 to direct the Respondents trerein to notify and conduct a fresl moo-up round of TGEAPCET 2024-21 counselling for all the engineering counies fo" the A.Y. 2024- 25 by notifying all t1e courses offered by the Petitioner lrrstitutiln with the full intake capacity as s;rnctioned and approved by the AICTE :lnd the JNTU for the A.Y. 2024-25, incltrding by suspending the operation of the lvlemo dated 24.08.2024 bearing No. '1437-AITEtA2t2O24 issued by the Respondent No. 1, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s B.AVANI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI S.RAHUL REDI)Y, SpL. Gp Counsel forthe Resoondent No.3: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR ADDL ADVOCi\TE GENERAL Counsel for the Resoondent No.4: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR AICTE Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.s & 6: M/s. C.vANl REDD)" sc l::oR TscHE JNTUH W.P.NO: 23682 OF 2024 Between:

1. CMR Technical Education Society, Having office at plc,t No 13, Sy. No. 59, .layanagar Cokrny, Bowenapally, Secundeiabad. Rep. by its C haimian Mr. C. Gopal Reddy 2. g.MF. Technicrrl Campus, Kandlakoya Village, Medcial M:lndal, Medchal ^ Ma114Rep. b1 rts Chairman Mr. C. Gbpal 3. Mr. C. Gopal Reddy_., S/o. Late Malla R6ddy, aged. 53 ye ars. F/o. plot No. 33, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenpally, Secundera-bad, 50001 i. AND .. PETTTIONERS State oiricia-an;: 2nd Floor, Vidya Bhawan, Nampally. Hldesin

1. State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher Edu,:ation _ Department. Se,c;rgfs11s1 Buildings, Hfderabad 2. commissioner of rechnical Edubatioh, Department of re:hnicelEducation. 3. Jawaharlal Nehr.r Technological Universim, HyaeiraO'aO, ilepre*ented by its 4. All India Counc Ifor Technical Education, lndira Gandhi Srport Ctomplex, I.p. 5. IelanganaStat,: Couircil-for Higher Eriucation, Floor, JN--U Masab Tank Estate. New Delhi.Rep bv its Secretarv. Registrar Campus. Maha,reer_Marg, Opp. Mahaveer Hoipital. iVtasrrO tai t<, HyOeriUaA. Represented b! ,ts Secretani 6 The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2024-25, Ground Floor, lndustry-Anralsnlv Collaboration Center (IACC JNTU, Kukatpally, Telangana - 500 085. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus a. Declaring section 20 of the Telangana Education Act. 1982 in the manner of its application by Respondent No' 1 in relation to the AICTE approvals granted under section 10(1xk) of the AIGTE Act, 1987 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and strike down the same for being violative of Article 254 of the constitution of lndia. b. Alternatively, read down Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act. 1982 to hold that the said section could apply only in the manner of a prior educational survey undertaken before the commencement of the consideration process by the AICTE for fresh / renewal of applications for the ensuing Academic Year by bringing it in harmony with regulation 6.2 of AIGTE Regulations read with section 10(1)(k) of the AIGTE Act.19B7 as interpreted by the Honourable supreme court of lndia in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commr.andSecy.toGovt.HigherEducationDeptt.,(2000)5SCC231which remains valid law and . Declaring the Memo dated 24.08.2024 bearing No. 1433-C TE A2 2024t1 as arbitrary. unlawful, malicious in law and unconstitutional and set aside the same and further direct the Respondents herein to treat the Petitioner lnstitution as a validly permitted, affiliated and approved lnstitution for the Academic Year 2024-25, for all the courses of the 2ndd Petitioner lnstitution including the adjusted intake/increased intake in the courses of B. Tech csE and B. Tech csE (AIML) as sanctioned and approved by the AIGTE and the JNTU for the Academic Year 2024-25 and permit the Petitioner lnstitution to fill up the seats as per the AIGTE permitted intake for the AcademicYear 2O24-25 by directing the Respondents to either conduct a fresh mop-up round of counseling of the TGEAPCET for the AcademicYear 2024-25 or by permifting the Petitioners to fill up the seats through spot admissions. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci .cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mey be ;,lgsss6 to direct the Respondents to notify and permit admissions in all the courser; offered by the Petitioner lnstitution rvith the full intake capacity as sanctio red and approved by the AICTE and the.rNTU for the A.Y. 2024-25 including durng thr: phase of Spot Admissions of the T3EAPCET 2024-25 counselling, pendirg disgr6ss; of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under liection 151 cPc praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in s rpport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents l'erein to notify and conduct a freslt mor)-up round of TGEAPCET 2024-25 ,:ounselling for all the engineering courr;es for the A.y. 2024- 25 by notifying all th,-' courses offered by the petitioner lrstitutirrn with the full intake capacity as s:rnctioned and approved by the AICTE :rnd th,: JNTU for the A.Y. 2024-25, including by suspending the operation of the Memo dated 24.08.2024 bearing \o. '1433-C/TElA2t2OZ4l1 issued by the Res,:ondent No. .1, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S.NIRANJAN REDDY AND SRI D PRAKASH REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI TARUN G. REDDY Counsel for the Res;:ondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI S.RAHUL REDt)y, SF,L. Gp Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI PRABHAKAR pERl, SC FOR ADDL ADVOCI\TE GENERAL Counsel for the Res;rondent No.4: SRI PRABHAKAR pERl, SC FCIR AICTE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: M/s. C.VANI REDDy, SC t:'OR TSCHE JNTUH W.P.NO: 23683 OF 2024 Between:

1. MGR Educatir:nal Society, .173 plassey Lane, trlallareldy Gardens, Secunderabad, t-{yderabad,-Telangana _ SOd011 Rei. n.r iti SJcietary:Ur. C. Gopal Reddy 2. cMR lnstitute o1'Technology, Having office at Kandlak,)ya Vrllaoe. Medchar Mandat, Medcrat - Matkajgiri . Disirict, Hyderabad e dt+Or Heb.' OV- its Correspondent Mr. C. Gopal'Reddy 3 Mr. C. Gopal Reddy, S/o. Late Malla Reddy, age4 -Bowenpally, Secunderabad, 50001 1 . -5-3 Jayanagai Colony, years, Rl/o. Plot No. 33' ...pETlTloNERs AND Registrar. DeDartment, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 1 . State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education 2. Coinmissiorier of Technical Edu-catioir, Department of Technical Education, State of Telangana, 2nd Floor, Vidya Bhawan, Nampally, Hyderabad 3. Jawaharlal Ne-hru Technological Uiriversity, Hyderabad, Represented by its +. AttinOia Council for Technical Education, lndira Gandhi Sport Complex, l'P' 5. ielanciana State Couircil'for Hiqher Education, 1St Floor, JNTU Masab Tank Camp"us, Mahaveer Marg, OpplMahaveer Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad' Reoresented bv its Secretarv. Estate, New Delhi.Rep by its Secretary

6. Thi: Convenor,'TG EAPCET 2024-25, Ground Floor, lndustry Acadgly Collaboration Center (IACC), JNTU, Kukatpally, Telangana - 500 085. . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus. a. Declaring section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 in the manner of its application by Respondent No 1 in relation to the AIGTE approvals granted under section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act, '1987 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and strike down the same for being violative of Article 254 of the constitution of lndia. b. Alternatively, read down section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 to hold that the said section could apply only in the manner of a prior educational survey undertaken before the commencement of the consideration process by the AICTE for fresh / renewal of applications for the ensuing Academic Year by bringing it in harmony with regulation 6.2 of AICTE Regulations read with section 10(1xk) of the AICTE Act, 1987 as interpreted by the Hon,ble Supreme Court of lndia in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commr. and secy. to Govt. Higher Education Deptt., (2000) 5 scc 231 which remains valid law and. c. Declaring the Memo daled 24.08.2024 bearing No' 1433- BlTElMt2Oz4 as arbitrary, unlawful, malicious in law and unconstitutional and set aside the same and further direct the Respondents herein to treat the Petitioner lnstitution as a validly permifted, affiliated and approved lnstitution for the Academic Year 2024-25, for all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner lnstitution including the adjusted intake/increased intake in the course of B. Tech csE and B. Tech CSE AIML as sanctioned and approved by the AICTE and the JNTU for the Academic Year 202,1-25 and permit the Petitioner lnstitution to fill up the seats as per the AICTE permitted intake for the Academic Year 2Ot'A-25 cy directing the Respondents to eilher conduct a fresh mop-up round )f corrnseling of the TGEAPCET for the ,AcademicYear 2024-25 or by permittinry the l,)etitioners to fill up the seats through spot admissions. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under rSection 151 cPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the Responderts to notify and permit admissions in all the :ourses offered by the Petitioner lnstitution with the full intake capacity as r,anctioned and approved by the AICTE and the JNTU for the A.y. 2024-21; incluCing during the phase of Spot Adnrissions of the TGEAPCEI 2024-25 couns _.lling, pending disposal of the writ p,:tition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the cir:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in srrpport of the petition, the High court ma,7 be p eased to direct the Respondents herein to notify and conduct a freslr mol)-up round of TGEAPCET 2024-25 r;ounselling for all the engineering courses for the A.y.2o24- 25 by notifying all the courses offered by the petitioner Institutir,n with the full intake capacity as sernctioned and approved by the AlcrE e nd th,,: JNTU for the A.Y. 2024-25, incluCing by suspending the operation cf the Memo dated 24.08.2024 bearing No. 1433-B/TE\A2|2O24 issued by the Respondent No. 1, pending disposal of ttre writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S.NIRANJAN REDDY AND tiRl D.PRAKASH REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI TATUN G. REDDY Counsel for the Res;rondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI S.RAHUL REDE,Y, SpL. Gp Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PRABHAKAR pERl, l;C FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PRABHAKAR pERl, tic FOR AICTE Counsel for'the ResFondent Nos.S & 6: M/s. C.VANI REDDY, SC FOR TSCHE JNTUH ADDL ADVOCI.TE GENERAL W.P.NO: 23685 OF 2024 Between:

1. CMR Engineering Educational Soceity, Having oflrce at Plot N^o. 1, Sy. No. 59, Jayanaglr Colon"y, Bowenapally, Seiunderabad. Rep. by its Secretary Mr. C' ,. 3liii"?Tf.%11hs colese, Having orrice at Kandlakoya-Villase, Y"9"I'.rr Mandal, Medchal-DistrictlHyderabad -501401 Rep. by its Conespondent Mr. C. Srisailam Reddy. 3. Mr. C. Srisailam Reddy, S/o Ch. Narasimha Reddy Reddy, Aged. 43 years Rl/o Plot No. 1, Sy. No.59, Jayanagar Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad ANO ...PETITIONERS

1. State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Deoartment. Secretariat Buildinqs, Hvderabad

2. Cohmissiorier of Technical Edu-catioh, Department of Technical Education, State of Telang ana,2nd Floor, Vidya Bhawan, Nampally,-Hyderabad. . 3. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Uhiversity, Hyderabad, Represented by its Registrar. Estate, New Delhi.Rep by its Secretary.

4. Allindia Council for Technical Education, lndira Gandhi Sport Complex, l.P. 5. Telangana State Couhcil'for Higher Education, 1st Floor, JNTU Masab Tank. Camp-us, Mahaveer Marg, Oppi Mahaveer Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad' Reoresented bv its Secretarv.

6. Th6 Convenor,'TG EAPCET 2024-25, Ground Floor, lndustry Academy Collaboration Center (IACC), JNTU, Kukatpally, Telangana - 500 085. ...RESPONDENTS 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 any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of 'Mandamus a. Declaring Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 in the manner of its application by Respondent No 1 in relation to the AIGTE approvals granted under section 10(1xk) of the AICTE Act, 1987 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and strike down the same for being violative of Article 254 of the constitution of lndia b. Alternatively, read down section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 to hold that the said section could apply only in the manner of a prior educational survey undertaken before the commencement of the consideration process by the AICTE for fresh / renewal of applications for the ensuing Academic Year by bringing it in harmony with regulation 6.2 of AICTE Regulations read with section 1o(1xk) of the AIGTE Act, 1987 as interpreted by the Hon'ble supreme court of lndia in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. comm and secy. to Govt. Higher Education Deptt., (2000) 5 scc 231 which remains valid law and c. Declaring th€ Memo daled 24.08.2024 bearing No.1433-4TE/A212024 as arbitrary, unlavuful, rralicious in law and unconstitutional an I set ,aside the same and further direct the Respondents herein to treat the Petitioner lnstitution as a validly permitted, afliliated and approved lnstitution for the ,\cade,nic Year 2024- 25, tor all the courses of the 2nd Petitioner lnstitution irrcludirg the adjusted intake/increased intake in the course of B. Tech CSE and B. Tech CSE (AIML) as sanctioned and approved by the AICTE and the JNTU for the Academic Year 2024-25 and permit the Petitioner lnstitution to fill up the seats as per the AICTE permitted intake for the Academic Year 2024-25 by directin,l the rlespondents to either conduct a fre sh mop-up round of counseling of the r TGE APCET for the Academic Year 2024 -25 or by permitting the Petitioners to fil up the seats through spot admissions. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under lSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to rotify and permit admissions in all the courser:; offered by the Petitioner lnstitution with the full intake capacity as sanctiorred and approved by the AICTE and the JNTU for the A.Y. 2024-25 including durng thr', phase of Spot Admissions of the TCiEAPCET 2024-25 counselling, pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s.rpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents lerein to notify and conduct a fres r moi)-up round of TGEAPCET 2024-25,]ounselling for all the engineering coLlr(ies for the A.Y.2O24- 25 by notifying all the courses offered by the Petitioner lr stitution with the full intake capacity as sanctioned and approved by the AICTE rrnd the JNTU for the A.Y. 2024-25, inclu ding by suspending the operation <rf the Memo dated 24.08.2024 bearing No. 1433-A/TElA2l2024l1 issued by the Resrrondent No. 1, pending disposal of tre writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S.NIRANJAN REDDY AND SRI D.PRAKASH REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI TARUN G. REDDY Counsel forthe RespondentNos.l & 2: SRt S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL. GP ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI' SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR AICTE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: M/s. C.VANI REDDY' SC FOR TSCHE JNTUH The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSIII\TAN W.P. Nos. 23539. 23584. 23639. 23651. 23655. 2 3657 . 23660. 23682, 23683 and 23685 of2024 COMMON TORDER: Heard Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy and Sri D.I'rakasr Reddy, leamed Seni,:r counsel representing Sri Tarun G. Redd',,, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate Genera and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Govemment Plerrder and Mr. M. Melraboob Ali, learned Standing Counsel appr:aring for respondent lrkr.4 and Sri Prabhakar Peri, leamed S-anding counsel for JNTU

2. Lr,r involved in all these writ petitions is on: and the same. J'herelore, they were heard together and decided lry way of this common ,rrder.

3. Th,: Societies, the Colleges run by thr: Soc eties and Secretaries o I the Societies are before this Courl.

4. Thir; is third round of litigation. To modifr,'enhar,ce, intake of seats arul merger of Courses, the petitio ners submitted applications before All India Council for Techlical Education (AICTE) and also Jawaharlal Nehru Technological tJniversity t. 2 KI,J WPNo.23539 of2024 & h,t t {l (.[.iTU) Hyderabad. The same were considered and permissions were accorded permissions. Even then, respondent Nos.l, 2, 4 and 6 did not permit the petitioners from running its courses of B.Tech, CSE, with the additional intake on the basjs of the merger of courses as approved by the AICTE. Therefore, petitioners filed writ petitions vide W.P.No.l929l of 2024 and batch. Vide order dated

19.07.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petitions directing respondents 1,2, 4 and 6 to examine the case of the petitioners for increase in intake in the existing courses and also adjustment of seats in other Courses as approved by AICTE and JNTU and for inclusion of colleges in the counseling process for the Academic Year 2024-25. This Court also directed the said respondents to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners within a period ofone week from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthe said order.

5. In compliance with the said order, respondents passed orders rejecting the request made by the petitioners for increase and intake and for merger of certain Courses for the Academic year 2024-25. 3 KL,J WP \0.23539 )f2024 &batch

6. Chailenging the said rejection, the petitiorrers arrd others filed writ pe.itions vide W.P.No.20468 of 2024 a::td ba ch. Vide common ordel dated 09.08.2024, this Court dismiss,:d the said writ petitions. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with th: said common order, the pe:itioners and others preferred intra-corut aptreal vide W.A.No.953 of 2024 and batch. Vide common jrLdgment, dated

13.08.2021,I)ivision Bench of this Court disposed :f the said writ appeals by se tting aside the impugned rejection orders th,)rein and also commorr order dated 09.08.2024 of leamed Sing e Judge. Division Berrt;h directed the Higher Education Department to consider clairi of each of the appellants and take a decision in accordance v,ith law expeditiously. Division BencI alsc directed respondents th.erein to take a fresh decision on tht: clairrrs of the appellants accordance with law and for thrrt pu,pose, if necessary, tinre table/schedule of counseling may b: appr opriately modified so that a meaningful consideration o,' eaclL of the appellants' cllim takes place. Thus, without expressing an,r opinion on merits, f)ivision Bench disposed of writ apyrcals with the aforesaid directions. 4 KI,J WP No.23539 of2024 & batch 1l

7. In compliance with the said judgment, vide order dated

23.08.2024 and 24.08.2024, I't respondent rejected the request made by the petitioners. Challenging the said impugned orders, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.

8. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions contending that vide common judgment dated 13.0g.2024 in W.A.No.953 of 2024, Division Bench of this Court directed respondents therein to take a fresh decision on the claims of the appellants in accordance with law. They have not considered the claims properly and rejected the claims without assigning reasons properly. In the aforesaid common judgment, this Couft held that in the absence of reasons, conclusions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Even then, respondents did not give conclusions properly. They have not exercised their power under Section 20 ofthe Telangana Education Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act') properly. There is discrimination. Respondent No.l is under obligation to act fairly without ill-will or malice in fact or in law. The action of respondent No.l in rejecting the increase in intake in petitioners institutions has been undertaken due to the fact that the petitioners institutions and Societies have --a;;i-;-t-:itl::r€---r-r---- - . ---i-:X:-"r---?1-::'::-- =-F---'*-w 5 KL,J Wt No.23i3! ot2024 &.batch members wI() are connected to the previous golemm()nt in the State. Such arL exercise has been undertaken by resl>onderrt No.1 in relation to tle only such institutions whose membt:rs ha,l political affiliations u,rith the previous govemment. Thus, cnly such institutions are being singled out and denied the ri6;hts w hich have been granterl to the other institutions and such an action is completely arbitrary and illegal and would fall within tht, ambit of legal malice.

9. 'thr s, the action of 1" respondent in reje<;ting the claims made by the petitioners is discriminative and in vio ation of Article 14 of the Co-rstitution of India. 1't respondent cann,)t tak(, different stands to reject the claims of the petitioners. Therefore, the said action of tl.re 1 't respondent in rejecting the claims of the l retitioners is arbitrary iu-rd illegal and in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

10. 1" respondent failed to consider that there will rLot be any financial implication on the 1 respondent. In the .mpugned rejection order, 1" respondent failed to consider that tle AICTE and JNTU lave already accorded permissions or conc ucting of i I l 6 KL,J WP No.23519 of2024 & barch inspections. They have conducted inspection of the sites. Even then, I't respondent rejected the claims of the petitioners.

11. The reasons assigned by the I't respondent in the impugned orders including the data mentioned-in the Annexures are contrary to record and action of the l"trespondent is arbitrary. With the said submissions, the petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order and a direction to respondents to treat the petitioners institutions as validly permitted, affiliated and approved institutions for the Academ ic year 2024-25 for all the courses of the colleges including adjusting intake of seats in the courses of B.Tech, CSC as sanctioned and approved by AICTE and JNTU for the said Academic Year. They also sought for permission to fill up the seats for the Academic Year 2024 - 25 or by perrnitting the petitioners to fill up seats by way of spot admissions.

12. 2"d respondent has filed counter contending that in compliance with the corlmon judgment dated 13.08.2024 in W.A.No.953 of 2024 and batch, respondents 1 and 2 have considered all the aspects and rejected the claims of the petitioners. l"t respondent has examined cases of the petitioners separately and 7 KL,J WI'No.2353 ) of 2024 &.batch considered iLIl the aspects including the permissi rn ac')orded by AICTE and INTU. They have rejected the claims cf the tretitioners by speciticatly assigning reasons. There is no enor in the same. There is no rrbitrariness. l " respondent never shcwn t,ny illegal malice and 1" respondent is nothing to do with thr : political affiliations ,r[ the members of the said societies. Wit]r the said submissions 1't respondent sought to dismiss all tht: writ rletitions.

13. S'i D.Prakash Reddy, leamed Senior (louns:l and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel appe,lring for petitioners, leamed Advocate General and Sri S.Rah r1 Reddy, leamed Spe<,ial Govt.Pleader made their submissiotrs extt nsively.

14. Lt:irned counsel for the petitioners place,I relia nce on the principle la d down by the Apex Court, in Javraharlal Nehru Technologir:al University Registrar vs. Sangzrm L axmi Bai Vidyapeetr, East Coast Railway vs. Mahadtv Appa Rao2, E.P.RayapJra vs. State of Tamil Nadu3. ' lzotoS n scc lze '1zoto; u scc ozs ' lroz+y a scc : 8 KL,J WPN0.23539 0f2024 & barch

15. Whereas, leamed Advocate General placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University vs. Crescent Educational Societya, and also Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supr-a) and A.p.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University vs. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technologys.

16. In Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra), the Apex Court discussed the scope of power of State Govemment under Section 20 of the Act. Paragraph Nos.l4 and 15 are relevant and the same are extracted below:-

14. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section 20(1) makes it clear that the survey is conducted so as to identifu 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 g 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. a 1zozrl ro scc ros 5 eo2t) 2 scc 564 / 9 KI,J WP No t3539 of2024 & barch

15. The rtrovisions contained in Section 20 are wholes tme ard intend not only to ,:ater to the educational needs of the area brrt also prevent the mushroonr growth of the institutions/courses. In case institutions are permitterlto run each and every course that may affec I the vcry standard of educa.ion and may ultimately result in sub-standar,l educiLtion. There is alread y' a paucity of well-qualified teachers in a large number of institutiors and the available seats in pharmacy cotrse in Hyderabad City are lemaining vacant every year in spite of tre red rction in a number rf seats. It had not been possible to fill up th: available vacancie:r due to non-availability of students. Thus, it is al parent that rvhen 30 institutions in Hyderabad City are already runninl pharmacy course) ttLe refusal to grant NOC by the University t"as rvholl..justified.

17. In the said judgment, the Apex Court alsc considered regulations 5.2 and 5.3 of AICTE Regulations, rvhiclL say that a new collese proposing to offer technical edrcatior with the University rlffiliation shatl first seek an NOC frr,m tht, Uniyg..i1, before aprlying to AICTEI pCIl any other stafltory body. Regulation 5.3 provides that the permission for. start ing of new programm(,s, in the existing colleges shall be ccnsidr,red by the University es per the priority/policy of the State G:vemrnent if any.

18. Io the said judgment, moratorium imposed t,y the State Govemmer t feli for consideration. In paragraph Nos. 26 afld ZT , Apex Court held:- i i I 10 KL,J WPNo.23539 of2024 & batch -be- 'allotted

26.ThedecisiontakenbytheStateGovernenttoimposeamoratorium il #;ffi;;'lucts ,"fle"t"d in perspective plan is based on a survey and supported by the data' Considering the fact that seats are gomg has been ffi;"r[:i:; ii, iiirz-zors i"'*'" nt''u"nu"v c9urs9' !1ra piven in the SLP That u*ong si'tlii"gts affiliated to,the University' 30 irere in the citv of Hvderab# il;;i oi total to3o seats' 173 had i^-"', it it "-*t"t that a farge number of seats ffiHj';#. to one remained vacant Not -ot" tfi* J0 seats can of.the-High Court that It institution. ln the circumstan*Jil" "rr"*r,ion was for the institution t" *"t"'*a consider the viability'and it was not for the University or staiJ ?outrnrn"nt t: ."t -ry same into -l;'completely a flimsy and ir-nrlrmpsible reason :"o'*il"il;, .-ii","o 1," T*h,:: i q:m; tal1u"i :ifr#ltr- iffil' :i .'T ;i ;h' j{:::"" approach $ilfi-lff"i,T:ffiJfi#1;?il'; that the requirement of the warranted in such matters' it'i' '"t "ttfv localiw should exist but i''i" * t" titured thar' only the standard and once they come up' they educational institutions 'h"til;;;;;p should be able to survtve' .ii;l'j" J i J:,: 1# b": . r 27 . A I ar ge ",- lTl I I: ".}'.ff , ":; HL:ffi li"ilT{i{"',i,,..i[: j#*TiltJf H:T"iH;,,.': comPromised and sacrrtrceo r them at a ,eckiess manner *itt'out tt'""" ;;i;g *-y requirement "t*'igtrt"n tr't existing system of oarticular place There i' t 'Li to :r,ffi ; "n Ji io *ur"- i r -* ln t* :k;ff []lH:,fi J q:n:i: i?'ii ; r ope n the co urse wh e ne'e r :H:1 ;J [ilT,f: "ii"l in observing that or wherever they desire tnt rii*fl'i""i h* urtl "tt"a u" the relevant criteria for refusal of the seats remaining vacant "o'ia'n"i NOC " "ri'ir "'r"*T * -fo-r "i t

19. Paragraphs No'34 and 35 of the said judgment are also relevant, the same are extracted below:-

34. The provisions contained in Section 20 of the 1982 Act involved in the instant case are different and its validity vis-a-vis to the AICTE Act has already been upheld by this Court' Apart ftom that' it has not been pointed out that in the exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Central 11 KL,J WP No 23539 of2024& batch Act, norms have been fixed by AICTE as to how mimy coileges should functior at a particular city/place. Definitely the Sta:e Gov:mment and the University, in the absence of any such norms/rules raving been framed ry AICTE can always have their say as per ipplicatle statutory provisions or policy. In the instant case, Section 20 ol th: l9B2 Act, enables .rniversities to grant no-objection certificate a fter corrsidering the local rerjirement and as no guidelines in this regard have ireen framed by AlCl'li, it cannot be said to be an exercise ofpower agairst the norms fixed b1 AICTE Consequently, no repugnancy aris:s. Thc mushroom growth o1'the Institutions cannot be permitted, was rillhtly p rinted out in the pers r,:ctive plan. A large number of institutions have i,lready been permittel to function in the State by the Central bodies. It s painful to note thar rt several places mushroom gro*th of the ir stitutic ns had been permitte I by such bodies in an illegal manner. In casr there is no check or balan:,: and the power is exercised in an unbridlel reckloss manner, the sufferer is going to be the standard of education. At th( same time, there is rr necessity of good institutions with new technologv. but at the same tinx: mushroom growth of the sub-standard institutior s cannot be permitte,l There has to be a requirement of educatione I instit rtions in the iocality rnd that is one of the main considerations

35. The ,:ounsel appearing for the respondents were n()t able to point out any of the provisions in the AICTE Act and rules fo: a judging requirement of the locality have been framed by tte Cou rcil. In the absence ,r lguidelines or norms fiamed to check the mrrshroot n growth of the instit:tions, the university cannot be deprived of c,lnsider lng the said aspect. The State Govemment had also sent a commu ricatio r to AICTE regardinll the alarming increase in the number of technical educational institutiors in the area in question and imbalanced grc,Wh. the decision ofthe Str{e has been taken in an objective manner and the sarne is based 12 KI,J WP No.23539 of 2024 & batch based on the consideration of data and could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary in any manner whatsoever' The policy decision of the State Govemment cannot be said to be itlegal and on that basis' the University has taken the decision in terms of Section 20 ofthe 1982 Act'

20. In the light of the same' it is relevant to note that the petitioners frled the aforesaid writ petitions to declare Section 20 of the Act, as ultra vires' Initially matters were listed before the Division Bench. On consideration of the said principle' vide order dated 04.09.2024 in W'P'N o'23539 of 2024 and batch' Division Bench held that the validity of Section 20 of the Act' was previously challenged and has been uphetd by Apex Court in Government of AP vs' J'B'Educational Society6' Once the validity of a provision is upheld by Apex Court' all grounds must be presumed to have been considered b the Court and fiesh litigation challenging the validity of the same provision on some additional grounds would be barred by principle of res judicata as held by the Apex Court in Kesho Ram and Company vs' Union 6 200s (3) scc 211

1. 13 KI-,J WP No.2 l5l9 of 2024 & batch of IndiaT. l-hus, with the said findings, Division llench directed the registry to list the matters before Single Judge.

21. ]n Crescent Educational Society (supra r, the Apex Court refer.'ing to 5.5, 5.6,6.1 of AICTE Regula.ions, held that for starting nerv courses/increase in intake/Change cf Site /Location of the existin,3 College/lnstitute, prior permission fror n the State Govemment is mandatory.

22. ln A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technok,gical University (supra), ,A.pex Court held that the stand take r by the AICTE supporling ,.he case of college is unwarranted.

23. Lr East Coast Railway (supra), Apex Cour- considered scope of artritrariness, in paragraph No.23 held:-

23. Arbitrruiness in the making ofan order by an authority cau man fest itself in different lorms. Non-application of mind by the authority naking the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a pubtic auth )rity nust disclose due and p,cpsv application of mind by the person making rhe ordr r. This may be evidenr lrom the order itself or the record contemporarLeously maintained. Applicaticn of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by he authority making th: order. And disclosure is best done by recording the rea rons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of rrasons ,rither in the ' 1989 (3) S(]l 1s1 I i t4 KL,J wP No 23539 of 2024 & batch order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive ofthe order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable'

24. In E.P.Rayappa (supra) with regard to the equality' the Apex Court held as follows:- "Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it carmot be "cribbed cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are swom enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other' to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch' Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative ofArl' 14' and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative ofArt' 16' Arts' 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action an( ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valent relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality' Where the operative reason for State action' as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations' it would :amount to mala fide exetcise of power and that is hit by Aff' 14 and 16' Mala fide exercise of Power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from thesamevice:infactthemattercomprehendstheformer.Bothare inhibited bY Arts. 14 and 16'

25. Thesum and substance of the aforesaid judgments is that the State has power to accord permissions to start new institutions' i..,-.i.-< 15 KL,J WP No.: 3539 of 2024 & batch increase in intake and merger of courses etc., in terms rf Section 20 of the A ct. The State has to consider seve ral a,;pects while according permission or rejecting the same.

26. As discussed supra, in the hrst phase of litigation, 1s responJent has rejected the claims made by tlte petrtioners on the follou ing grounds:-

8. Further, the issue of the merger of courses/institutionl /increase in intakes, notwithstanding the AICTE approvals that l.ave bt en obtained merely r rr the basis of online applications by way ofonly se f-disclosure made br the petitioner colleges, needs to be locked irL the broad perspective of the availability of infrastructure, mainlenanc( of teaching standard s at the petitioner colleges and the said matter dr'es not limit alone to the financial implications involved (by way of re-jmbursement of tuitjor fee to the admitted students) in granting intrease:n intakes by the petitLoner colleges

9. That the issue of merger of courses/institutir,ns in akes at the petitioncr colleges is a policy matter, irrespectil e of he colleges readiness to run the said Courses."

27. ,Shallenging the said rejection orders, the pe'titioners filed writ petiti,rns. Vide order dated 05.09.2024, this Ccurt dismissed interloculory applications filed by the petitioners in al the aforesaid writ petitions holding that the interim relief anc mair relief sought by the petitioners is one and the same and llso t he admission i i i I 1 t6 KL,J WP No.23539 of2024 & batcfi schedule. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order' petitioners preferred intra court appeals under Clause 15 ofletters Patent. Vide W.A.No.1062 of 2024 and batch' Vide common judgment, dated 09.09.2024, Division Bench allowed the said writ appeals, while setting aside the aforesaid order of Single Judge' Division Bench directed the respondents to conduct a mop up round of counseling in respect of increased intake of capacity in the seats available in the institutions of the petitioners. ln the mop up round of counseling, it shall clearly be notified that the aforesaid exercise is being taken up in pursuant of the orders passed by this Court and the admission of the students against such courses shall be subject to outcome of the orders which may be passed in W'P'No'23539 of 2024 artdbatch. Division Bench also directed the respondents to file counteraffrdavitswithintwoweeksandrequestedtheleamed Single Judge to deal with the writ petitions expeditiously'

28. However, Division Bench has clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and any observations/findings made in the judgment have been made only for the purposes of deciding these appeals and shall have no bearing KL,J wP No.2 1539 of2024 & batch on the m()'its of the matters pending before the lerLmed Single Judge.

29. Ohallenging the said order, State has apprt ached Apex Court by rvay of filing Special Leave Petitioris ard vid,: order dated

20.09.202,+, Apex Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petitions

30. Ihereafter, petitioners filed contempt CA SES alleging witltul anl deliberate violation of judgment dated 0).09.2024 in W.A.No.l602 of 2024 and batch. Vide order d:Lted 21.10.2024 in I.A.No.1 o:'2024 in C.C.No.2046 of 2024 and batch, considering the fact tbat 23.10.2024 is the last date for admi;sion to the teclnrical l,)urses for the A.Y. 2024-25 as f,rxe1 by Apex Court, Division I|,:nch permitted the petitioners to fil1 up the seats which are lying vircant on account of increased intake capacily, which has been apprc,ved by the AICTE subject to the :ondirion that the petitioners shall not charge any capitation fee frorn the .;tudents.

31. 'lhereafter, vide common order daterl 09.06.2024, this Court disnrissed the said writ petitions.

32. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the siLid order, the petitioners preferred intra-court appeals vide W.A.No 953 of 2024 18 KL,J wP No.23539 of2024 & batch and batch under Clause 15 of Letters Patent' Vide common judgment, dated 13.08.2024, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Appeals setting aside the order passed by the leamed Single Judge on the ground that in the,impugned orders' there are no reasons. Therefore, in the absence of reasons' conclusions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny' Division Bench further held that paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the impugned order makes it clear that financial implication is not the only parameter and other parameters needs to be looked into such as infrastructure' maintenance of teaching standards at the Petitioner Colleges etc The specific claim of the each of the petitioner was nowhere discussed and analyzed on those aspects' Reasons mentioned in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 are only about proposed parameters each required to be decided. The same was not done in the present case' Thus' on the said grounds, the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the leamed Single Judge and also rej ection orders of the Higher Education Department. Division Bench directed the Higher Education Department to consider the claims of each of the petitioners and take a fresh decision in accordance with law' l;aE-ffirGIEEft6-aFW -@-::'r 19 KL,J w? No 2353( of2024 & batch

33. In ,;ompliance with the said judgment, vide impugned order dated 2a..OB .2024, l't respondent has rejected the cla ims of the petitioners orL the following grounds:-

2. Regardi;rg the request for merger of courses/increase in int rkes of B.'lech. ir CSE for the Academic Year 2024-25, 1le fo lowing admission r;latistics after Final Phase of TGEAPCET-20:',4 adm :ssions, which are rppended to this order, are relevant to be notec.:- Annexure.I: The Approved Intakes and Admission Detrils in B.Tech in CSE at (lMR. College of Engg & Tech., Kandiakoya (V) M:dchal- Malkajgiri [)istrict for the A.Y.2024-25. Anncxure-Il: 'lhe available vacancy position in B.Te:h in ]SE in Private Enllineering Colleges in Kandlakoya locality. Annexure-III: The available vacancy position in B.Te ch in ISE in Private Enllinccring Colleges located in Medchal Malkaj 3iri Di ;trict.

3. As seen fiom the data of Admission Statistics of TGE APCE'--2024, belbre the ntemal sliding process as on dated 20-08-2024 in th.: above Annexr-rres it is clear that there still are vacancies in respecr of the courses for uvhich increase is sought by the Appellant Oollege, in the Colleges Iccated in Kandlakoya locality and in the Colkges lolated in Medchal Nttrlkajgiri District wherein the Appellant Coll,:ge is ocated. Therefore, there is no discemible need to sanction 1br me:ger of courses/inc r,:ase in intake of B.Tech in CSE at this juncfirre.

4. The Appellant College has also not fumished proofcfthe reed for merger of ,lourses/increa.se in intakes of B.Tech in CSE lor the Academic Year 2024-25 in connection with the requi'emenl of the \ 20 KL,J WPNo.23539 of2024 & balch ,a) educational needs of the people in the locality. Further, reduction of intakes in core branches is not in tune with the policy of the Government.

5. Therefore, the proposed merger of courses/increase in intakes of B.Tech in CSE, for the Academic yeat 2024-25 is not feasible for consideration.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the request of CMR College ofEngg & Tech., Kandlakoya (V), Medchal-Malkajgiri Disrrict for merger of courses/increase in intakes of B.Tech in CSE, is hereby rejected. Armexure-I: Statement showing the approved intakes and admission details in respect of CMR college of engineering and Technology, Kandlakoya, Medchal Malkajgiri District (H.5) for the A.Y.2024-25 as on 20.08.2024 (Affrtiated to JNrU). S No Branch Code AICTE Intake AY 2024- 25 Appro- Intake AY 2024- 25 Conve Nor Intake AY 2024- 25 Allor Repor- Ted Vac- Rem- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CIV CSD CSE 30 180 750 CSM 360 ECE 120 EEE MEC 30 30 30 180 420 360 t20 30 30 23 139 324 277 92 23 23 23 139 324 277 92 23 23 20 133 320 274 97 l5 19 3 6 4 3 I 0 4 Total 1500 tt70 901 901 880 21 21 KL,J WP No 2353! of2024 & barch Annexure-Il: Statement showing the approverl int,lkes and admission details of CSE Branch in the location of .(andllkoya for the A.Y.2022-25 as on 20.08.2024. S No JN TU Co 1 95 2 3 4 5 7R 1Y ER H5 6 t4 7 8 K8 N3 Name of the instihrtion AICTE Appro- Conve Intake Nor Allot- Rep Vac Rem AY Intake Intak€ Ted 2024-25 AY 2024-25 AY 2024- 25 900 420 323 323 315 8 840 420 323 323 305 18 900 270 209 209 201 8 840 420 323 323 900 270 209 209 308 15 201 8 720 480 370 310 358 t2 600 240 184 184 t78 6 1620 420 323 323 313 10 INST] IUTE OF AERC,}IAU- TICA]- ENGI..IEER- ING CMR TECHNIICAL CAM]'IJS MAR](I LAKS TIMAN REDI,-\' INST]TUTE OF TECHNIOLOGY AND MAN,\GE- MEN-- CMR ENGG COLI E GE CMR COLLEGE OF ENG(, AND TECHNIOLOGY MALI,,\. REDI ]' ENGI ..IEERTNG COLT EGE ST IIARTINS ENGI'iEERING COLTEGE MALI,1\REDD Y (]']LLEGE OF ENGG TECHNIOLOGY 22 KI,J WP No.23539 of2024 & barch 600 360 '11'l 277 2s0 27 600 420 323 323 -t z) 0 840 420 323 323 315 8 420 240 185 185 178 7 1260 660 508 508 499 9 540 420 323 323 3t4 9 9 Qe MALLA REDDY COLLEGE OF ENGINEER- ING 10 RO CMR INSTITUTE OF TECHNO- LOGY R2 MLR INSTITUTE OF TECHNO- LOGY MALLA REDDY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERIN G FOR WOMEN MALLAREDD Y ENGG COLLEGE FOR WOMEN NARSIMHA RTDDY ENGINEERIN G COLLEGE l2 R G l3 R H t4 x o Total I 1430 5610 4318 4318 t41 417 7 ANNEXURE III- STATEMENT SHOWING THE APPROVED INTAKES AND ADMISSION DETAILS OF CSE BRANCH IN RESPECT OF MEDCHAL.MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT FOR THE A.Y.2024-25 AS ON 20-08-2024. INST- NAME S No JN TU DE AICT E INTA KE 4.Y.2 APPR OVED INTA A.Y.20 24-25 coNv ENER INTAK EA.Y. 2024- ALLO TED REPO RTED VAC ANT REMA RKS 23 wl No.2353 | of2024 &batch KL,J 024- 25 840 KE 25 420 323 323 308 480 420 323 JZ) 309 360 180 138 138 129 1;

1.1 o 420 420 :\ l-t JZ) 311 lt. 420 300 231 231 189 4)- 240 240 184 184 16C 2l 750 420 324 324 32( 4 720 480 370 370 35t l)- 600 240 184 184 17t 6 300 300 23t 23t t21 1r0 8R 15 AG 16 B6 t7 BK 18 C9 19 E5 20 t{s 21 J4 22 K8 23 M9 CMR ENG J COL -OGE ACI] ENGI}.IEER ING COL -EGE NALLA MAttA RED )Y ENGN'IEER ING COLLEGE ST. PET]itts ENG I].]EER ING COL LECE HOLI MA[.\/ INS] IIU- TECI TEC ] SCIENCE HYD E]RAB AD INS'I OF .fEC ]NOL OG} ,TND MGII] CMF COLLEGE OF E}]GG ANT TEC INOL oG! MAI,I,A REDD Y ENCNEER ING COLLEGE ST MA},'i'INS ENCI-.IEER ING COLLEGE AUR oRA SCII;}iTI- FIC.\ND TECHNOL OGI(]A.L ,l i 24 KL,J WPNo 23539 of2024 & batch 1620 420 323 323 313 10 300 300 231 231 179 52 360 360 277 277 261 16 600 360 277 277 2s0 27 600 420 323 323 323 0 480 480 369 369 355 14 840 420 323 323 315 8 360 360 276 216 261 15 INSTITU- TE 24 N3 MALLA REDDY COLLEGE OF ENGG TECHNOL OGY 25 N7 DRK 26 P6 INSTITU- TE OF SCI AND TECNO- LOGY VIGNAN BHARATI INSTITU- TE OF TECHNOL ocY RO 28 27 Qe MALLA REDDY COLLEGE OF ENGINEER ING CMR INSTITU- TE OF TECHNOL OGY GEETAN- JALI COLLEGE OF ENGG AND TECHNOL OGY 30 R2 MLR 29 RI 31 RA INSTITU- TE OF TECHNOL OGY KOMMURI PRATAP REDDY INST OF TECHNOL OGY 32 RG MALLA REDDY COLLEGE 420 240 185 185 t78 7 '! 25 WP No.23539 of2024 & b.alch KL.J 33 RH 34 RP r1 ; ,I]GE OF ENGINEER ING I oR WOMI)N MAL] REDt ENG( COLI FOR I]N IVIEG'IA INST ()F ENG(J AND TEC}tNOL OGY FOR WOlvIlN t260 660 508 508 499 9 180 180 138 138 r27 l1 35 TQ SIDD ARTH 240 240 184 184 172 JKRU 180 180 139 139 119 1i 2( toF D.]OL ,I]GE .IGG r].toL INST TEC} OGY SAMi TFII COLI OF E' AND TECI OGY MAL REDI ENG] ING COLI AND IVTAN MEN SCIE VIGI\ INST MAN MEN AND FOR woN SRE] ISNT ENG( AND TECI OGY BVRI'f )'r NIEER ,]]GE A.GE I ..1CES .1INS oF A.GE I I'ECH U]N i\S oF J INOL 36 U1 3l UJ 38 UP 39 VE 40 w 180 180 139 r39 lt6 2 300 300 231 231 219 1t 300 300 231 231 219 1 360 360 277 277 263 1,t 26 KL,J WPNo.23539 of2024 & batch H COLLEGE OF ENGINEER ING FOR WOMEN 4t xo NARSIMH A REDDY ENGINEER ING COLLEGE 540 420 323 323 314 9 TOTAL 2067 0 14070 10825 t0825 l0l5l 674

34. In the aforesaid Amexures, 1" respondent has specifically mentioned the statement showing the approved intakes and admission details in respect of the Colleges.

35. Referring to the same, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel would contend that the said statement fumished by I't respondent along with the impugned order is factually incorrect. The same is contrary to the approval and NOC issued by AICTE and JNTU respectively, on conducting inspection.

36. There is no dispute that there is no financial implications on the I't respondent for accepting request made by the petitioners. At the same time, I't respondent has to consider other parameters such as infrastructure, maintenance of teaching standard in colleges 27 KL,J wP No.2 1539 of 2024 & balch etc. l't resnondent has to conduct survey with regard to the same. l't respondenl is competent to conduct the said e;lercisr: and take a decision in terms of Section 20 of the Act. It is rlso not in dispute that mere issuance of NOC by JNTU and approral by AICTE does not restrir{ the State Govemment to exercise its p,:ws1s un6.t Section 2(' of the Act. State govemment is havinl3 po\ ,er to prevent mushroorr growth of institutions/courses as held by Apex Court in Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra). At the samr: time, State govemmerll cannot show any discrimination allainst any college and State has to consider all the aspects incluc ing ir rfrastructure, teaching frculty, number of institutions and courses, jntake within the localit1, etc., in respect of all the colleges within the said locality

37. In the present case, it is the specific contt,ntion of the petitioners that the State govemment has showr discr imination in respect of netitioners since the members of petitioner Society are affiliated 1() previous government. There is a specific assertion to the said eflect in all the writ affidavits. II 28 KI.J wP No 23539 of 2024 & batch

38. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that in State of Bihar and others vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and others8, Apex Court held as follows:- The concept of equatity as envisaged under Article 14 of.the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative .un r"i. Wh"n any authority is shown to have any illegality or irregularity in favour of any "o--iu"d individual or group of individuals other cannot claim the same illegality o. ineg,rla.ity on ground of denial thereof to them' Si#Uriy wrongludgment passed in favour of one individual does ncit entitltothe;s b claim similar benefits ln this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh & Ors v' NDMC & Ors [1996 (2) SCC 459] held that citizens have assumed wrong notions reiardirg the s"op" of Article 14 of the Constitution which ffiant"-es equality before law to all citizens' Benefits extended to some persons tn an rrregular or illegal manner camot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrirred in Article 14of the Constitution by way of writ petition frled in the High Court. The Court observed: 'Neitiiet Article 14 of the Constitulion conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Corrt io enforce such ciaim 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 iimilar benefits to othe.t. Before a claim based on equaiity l, upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has "tu,rt" been extericled to otheis and in this process there has been a discrimination." 39. In State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs' Dr'Rao V.B.J. Chelikani and otherse, Apex Court held as follows:- E AIR 2OOO SC 306 '2024 INSC 824 29 KL,J \ /P No.23: 39 of2024 & batch

55. f'llrs, it is crucial to recognise that the unreaso nablen.rss of a law. policy or state action can be both relative and abs clute. First, unreasonableness can be comparative, p,:aning it is assessed in relation to something else. In Ajay Hasia v. Xhalid Mujib Sehravardir0, this Court stipulated that a poli:y in questiu must satisfr two requirements under th(: reas( nable classili,;ation test- (a) the classification must be realonablr.); and (b) it must fulfil the twin conditions of intelligible diffe:entia and rational nexus. Second, a policy may perp 3trate discrirnination inherently, instead of inter se discrir rinatio -r vis- ir-vis others. In A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equip ment Corporation of India Ltd.,ll this Courl held that one net d not confire the denial of equality to a comparativo cvah Lation betwe:r tu,o persons to arrive at a conclusion of di;crin'rir atory treatment. An action/policy can per se be arbitrar y, and such arbitrrriness in itself constitutes a violation of the eqrLal of protection under law.

56. It irllows that the rigours of Article l4 cannot b: inte4,reted in a nrurow, pedantic or lexicographical manner.12'lhe do,:trjne of cla:;sification is neither a mere restatement of Alicle l:l ror is it tbe objective and end of that Article.l3 In a cate,ra of judgments, this Court has held that the reasonable classifir ation doctrir,r is a judicial formula to assess whether l>gislati ve or execurise actions are arbifiary, thus amounting to a den.al of equali,,,.la It is arbitariness that lies at the h eart ol the reasorable classification test. The principle of reasonablerress - 'o itetry r scc zzz " 1t9e+; : scc 316, 328 ,, rbid Ir Naturai Resourt.es Allocation, in re, Special Reference No.l of2o12, (2012) ra Ajay Hasia 1sr pra.; OSCCI 30 KI,J WPNo.23539 of2024 & batch o both legally and philosophically - is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness, pervading Article 14 like a "brooding omnipresence". I 5

57. In recent pronolrncements, this Court has clearly expounded India's equality jurisprudence -.from a reliance on the test of classification and arbitrariness to a moie substantive interpretation of equality. For instance, A.K. Sikri J., in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of Indiar6 had referred to the relationship between equality and dignity. In Navtej Johar v Union of India,lT D.Y. Churrdruchud, J. (as his Lordship then was) explicitly articulated the principle of substantive equality and remarked: "Equating the content of equality with the reasonableness of a classification on which a law is based advances the cause of legal formalism. The problem with the classification test is that what constitutes a reasonable classification is reduced to a mere formula: the quest for an intelligible differentia and the rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In doing so, the test of classification risks elevating form over substance. The danger inherent in legal formalism lies in its inability to lay tkeadbare the values which guide the process ofjudging constitutional rights. Legal formalism buries the life-giving forces ofthe Constitution under a mere mantra. What it ignores is that Article 14 contains a powerful statement of values - of the substance of equaliry before the law and the equal protection of laws. To reduce it to a formal exercise of classification may miss the true value of equality as a safeguard against arbihariness in state action. As our constitutional jurisprudence has evolved towards recognizing the substantive content of liberty and equality, the.core of Article 14 has emerged out of the shadows of classification. Article 14 has a substantive content on which, together with liberty and dignity, the edifice of the Constitution is built. Simply put, in that avatar, it reflects the quest for ensuring fair treatment of the individual in every aspect of human endeavor and in every facet of human existence." 15 Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India (197E) I SCC 248 '6 (zot+) s scc +38 " lzozl; ts scc tzs. .;.-,"iai*t- 31 KL,J WP No.i 3539 of 2024 & batch

40. it is also apt to note that in Cherr,buddi Education Societv and others vs. JNTU and othersrs, Division llench of this Cour1, harl an occasion to deal with issue of alditio:ral intake of seats for the A.Y. 2022-23, the powers cbnfrrred >n the State Govemme nt in terms of Section 20 of the Act, rrnd hrld that State Governme nt has power to consider all the aspecr.s whi[e permitting the institu -ions to grant permission for intake of course,; and merger of courses

41. I{eferring to the principle laid down by Apex Court in Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidhyapeet (supra), Divisirln Be rch held that the question relating to increase in seat intake or settir,.g up ofnew courses/nerv colleges is an unoccupied field, unoccupied by any central lel5islation like the AICTE Act. In such a sir.uation, it is certainly ()l)en to the State Govemment to have its sz y in matters related to r ncrease and intake or setting up ofnew cours es merger of courses.

42. [r. was further held that mere granting alprov rl by AICTE and issuance of NOC by the JNTU does not creare a ri;.;ht in favour t8 2023 (l),^.1-T 645 DB -aa,ta'.!'?nr@e4**.'F-.r.-tra_i.-*-?tE '.'at*,,r'' xqveareckE+ 32 KL,J wPNo.23539 of2024 & barch O of ttre petitioners insisting the State Govemment for grant of permission to increase and intake or setting up of new courses merger of courses.

43. In the present case, the State Govemment has rej ected the claims made by the petitioners with the aforesaid specihc reasons' It is the specific contention of the State Government that to maintain parity among the private educational institutions which were not granted additional intake earlier and the govemment taking into consideration needs of the locality, lack of enough competent engineers in co-branches like civil' mechanical and electrical has granted permission restricting intake in respect of the petitioners colleges as specifically mentioned in the permissions accorded to them. It is also the specific contention of the State Govemment that petitioners are seeking increase of seats/additional intake more than the required pass outs/ qualified students in TGEAPCET -2024. lf the Engineering Colleges including the petitioners 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' - -- E--F:EEr5=:- lS' r :J JJ KL,J \W No.2 1539 of 2024 & batch It is also the specific contention of the State Go'zernm ent that with an object io maintain balance among the convertional courses and emerging Jourses it has taken a decision not to allo'w the additional intake /in<:r'ease of seats for the colleges which are et rlier granted additional intake of seats. There is no discriminatior i in the said rej ection c,r'ders

44. It is also relevant to note that as per Ser:tion i'0 of the Act, State Gov,:mment is empowered to examine the zLforesr Lid aspects in respect o{ petitioners colleges as held by Apex Cour. in Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra) Crescent Educatirrnal Society (supra)

45. As discussed supra, earlier responrlents rejected the claims ol the petitioners without examining the c ase of each petitioner separately and the orders are stereo yped. No reasons were assisned in respect of each college wh ile re ,jecting their claims. Trerefore, in the absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny as held by Apex Court in M/s. Kranti I I I I 34 KL,J WP No.23539 0f2024 & ba&h Associates private Limited vs. Massood Ahmed Khanle. On consideration of the said aspects, Division Bench set aside the common order passed in earlier batch of writ petitions. However, Division Bench directed Higher Education Department to consider claims of each of the petitioners and take a fresh decision in accordance with law expeditiously.

46. In compliance with the said order, l't respondent has taken decision with regard to claim of each of the petitioners and rejected the same vide impugned orders. ln the said impugned orders, 1't respondent has considered the approved intakes and admission details, available vacancy position in Kandlakoya locality, available vacancy position in private engineering colleges located in Medchal Malkajgiri District in B'Tech in CSE for the A.Y.2024-25. l't respondent has also considered the data of admissionsstatisticsofTGEAPCET-2}}4beforetheinternal sliding process as on 20.08.2024.l't respondent has considered the same in respect of Kandlakoya locality and Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 1'(2010)9 SCC497, 35 KL,J wP No: 3539 of2024 & balch

47. I't respondent further considered the lact th at petitioners have not liunished proof of need for merger of <,ourse';/ increase in intake of B.Tech. in CSE for the A.Y.2024-25 it cornection with the requirement of educational needs of the people irr the locality and reduc tion of intake in core branches is nct in t,rne with the policy of the govemment. Therefore, the pr rpose,l merger of courses/ increase in intake of B.Tech in CSE for he aforesaid Academic Year is not feasible in consideration. l't respondent has specifical v mentioned the details of the same in the Annexures mentione<[ supra

48. It is also relevant to note that AICIE hrrs conducted inspectior of the petitioners colleges within one day. The Expert visiting Committee (EVC) has to conduct inspection properly. It has to consider the infrastructure facilities provirled by petitioners colleges including the details of teaching and non-tt',aching staff, technical staff, library, computers, other infra-l;tructr.. ral issues in detail. It oannot be like verification of the data funrished bv the petitionerri. The same is impermissible. It has to :ondu,lt inspection, not verihr:ation. 36 KI,J wPNo.23539 of2024 & batch

49. The scope of judicial review under Arttcle 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. This Court has to examine the validity and correctness of the decision making process' This Court cannot sit over as an appellate authority to decide the said factual aspects. If the decision making process is not in accordance with law and it is arbitrary, certainly this Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India' Therefore' the petitioners have to necessarily make out a case that the impugned orders are arbitrary.

50. As discussed supra, in compliance with the common judgment dated 13.08'2024 in W'A'No '953 of 2024' l't respondent has considered the claim of each of the petitioners herein and rejected the same. I't respondent has considered all the aspects including the education policy, infrastructure, admissions and also available data etc. I't respondent has also considered the approved intakes and admission details in B'Tech, CSE in the petitioners colleges for the Academic Year 2024-25 ' I't respondent has also mentioned the available vacancy position in B'Tech' CSE courses in private Colleges in Kandlakoya locality where the petitioners 37 KL,J u?No .3539of 2024 & barch colleges irle situated. 1't respondent has aiso qlnsidered available vacancy p,csition in B.Tech CSE located in N{edch.rl Malkajgiri District. ^'re details of the same are specificall'/ mertioned in the Annexures annexed to the impugned order. On c onsid,:ration of the said asper)ts only, l" respondent has rejected tte req,1gs1 made by the petitic rrers.

51. Though the petitioners contended that l't respondent rejected th,: claims of the petitioners on the grourd that members of the petitioners Societies had political affiliationr; with the previous governrne nt, they failed to prove the same.

52. By filing the statement to prove irrtake capacity and admissior. details in B.Tech.,CSE course, in lespec: of colleges situated rvithin the vicinity of the petitioners colleges Kandlakoya and Medchal Malkajgiri districts, rcth [,,ri D.Prakash Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel and Sri S. Nirarjan R,:ddy, learned Senior Cr,rmsel for the petitioners would contencl that 't respondent has show.r discrimination in respect of the petiti rners. Though they have alleged discrimination, they failed to pl ove t he same, by producinp, sufficient material Therefore, this Cour-t is of the 38 KL,J WPNo.23539 of2024 & batch considered view that the impugned order does not suffer with any irregularity and there is no arbitrariness or discrimination in the impugned orders.

53. As held by the Apex Court in .sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra), 1't respondent has power to consider various aspects and also to stop mushroom growth of colleges/courses including intake capacity. However, I't respondent has to exercise the said power reasonably without any discrimination or arbitrariness.

54. In the light ofthe aforesaid discussion, this Court is ofthe view that there is no discrimination or arbitrariness in the impugned orders. The petitioners herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order.

55. As discussed supra, petitioners are seeking a direction to therespondentstotreatthepetitionersinstitutiorrsasvalidly permitted, affrliated and approved institutions for the A'Y '2024-25 for all the courses of petitioners colleges and also seeking permission to fill up the seats as per the AICTE permitted intake for theA.Y,2024-25.Theyarealsoseekingaconsequentialdirectionto 39 KL,J wP No.2 1539 of2024 & be(ch responden: either to conduct fresh mop up roun,l of c ounseling of the TGEAPCET-2024 permitting the petitioners to fill up the seats through spot admissions.

56. In the light of the same, it is relevant to ex ract that the schedule r otified by Convener TGEAPCET-202,[/Corrmissioner of Technical tiducation, 2nd respondent herein:- a b c d f g h I Firs . Phase Secr rd Phase ; I Finz Phasc

04.07 .2024 tc' 23.07 2024

26.07.2024 tc , 04.08 2024

08.08.2024 k , 1818 2024 ,1 Pro. sional allotment on or before 13.08.2024 Upc a ting joining details by coll :13e

18.08.2024 sliding by 21 .08.2024 h' 28.08 2024 Cenb alized intemal Corl enor Spot admissions (for Private Una i,led Engineering Colleges)

30.08.2024 t<, 02.09 2024 Lasr date of uploading for Spot Adnissions candidates details tlrough online Las date for submission of hard cop es of the certificates of the canrlidate

03.09.2024

04.09.2024

57. I{evised Academic Calendar 2024-25 issue,l by AICTE vide Circular dated,25.09.2024, is also extracted ltelow - 40 KL,J WP No.23539 of2024 & batch ,^\ (As per Hon'ble Supreme Court order in I.A.No'210538 of 2024, dated 23.09.2024 S.No. For Technical Institutions Schedule for A.Y.2024'25 1 2 J (Not applicable for Standalone/ PGCM institutions) Last Date upto which First Year Students can be admitted against vacancies f Last Date for Commencement o Classes for First Year Students of Technical Courses Last Date for Lateral Entry Admission to Second Year Courses for NewlY Admitted Students 23 October,2024 23 October,2024 23 October,2024

58. lt is also relevant to note that the Admission Schedule has to be rigidly followed at any circumstances and the last date for admission/joining will not be extended beyond time specified in the admission schedule. No deviation in the admission schedule is permissible as held by Apex Court in Education promotion society for India and another vs' Union of India and others2o'

59. The said schedule is expired long back' Fven as per the information furnished by JNTU with regard to admission of students under MOP UP ROUND OF COUNSELLING in respect of petitioners colleges is as follows:- ,o 2019 (7) SCC 38 SI N o. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 H 5 8R RO 7R N3 RG RH J4 4t KI.J WP No. 3539of 2024&batch Collt:ge Code College Name Allofted students Exams written students Report,:d Classe.; attend('d studen s CMR College Engineering Technology 34 & CMR Engineering College 47 CMR Institute Technology 20 CMR Technical Campus Malla Reddy College of Engineering & Technolo gy (Autonomous) 23 5l Malta Reddy College of Engineering for Women 0 Malla Reddy Engineering College for Women Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous) Institute of Aeronautical Engineering Mani Laxman Reddy Institute of Technology and Management MLR Technology Institute 40 8 52 6 37 St.Martin's College Anurag College Engineering 13 Engineering 11 Vidya Jyothi Institute of Technology 34 TotaI 376 c ) l l z l l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z6 26 ) ) t1 r) "r-1 l;0 0 0 9 0 13 48 I I \ \ l \ 9 95 10 7Y 11 R2 12 K8 13 C1 14 01 42 I(LI wPNo.23539 0f2b24 & batch

60. The said data is not disputed by petitioners' But the only explanation offered by petitioners is that there is delay on the part of the respondents and pursuant to the orders granted by the Division Bench in the contempt cases' they have admitted the aforesaid students'

61. In the light ofthe aforesaid discussion' petitioners herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the l't respondent' Therefore' these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed' There shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sd/- A t1.-s: fAoJ+1334+[i[ 22. sEcrlo(6FFlcER To i. FI: g g .q"W,i:{ffi &fEgg!ffi :,1t"J':,'#,, e s,a,e .r ffi ffi 5l"5jlg,.Eiir,;"I*niJ,,l' ;E.*HT€1'

9. Two CD CoPies PSK. i HIGH COURT KL,J DATED:02105t2025 COMMON ORDER ClrC tnrO" i) r;F I l: p) .1.+ .-t$ i)Ili, 'ii: WP. N os. 2 3 5 3 9, 2 3 5 I 4,23G39,23 6 5 1, 2 3 6 St ;,231i 57, 23660,23682,23683 AND 23685 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 3,(