The High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in rejecting the admission of out of state students admitted to the 2nd Petitioner institution in B.Tech 2nd year Course for the academic year 2025-26 as being illegal, arbitrary u ncon stitutional and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith ratify and approve the admissions of out of state students numbering 28 listed in Annexure P-1 whose admission was rejected and admitted in the 2nd petitioner institution under the left over vacant seats (spot admissions) category through Lateral Entry category and treat the said admrssions as valid for all purposes lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition uncer section '1 51 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affrdavit frle,J in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner institution to impart trainrng in B.Tech course in their respective branches including issuance of hall tickets appearance in the examinations and declaration of results to the said out of state students listed in Annexure P-1 whose admission was rejected by the 3rd respondent, pending the disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI p. pANDU RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI pRABHAKAR pERl, SC FOR JNTU The Court made the following: ORDER =: * 1+ * * #, f {i llr+ t:. # t t HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO .2s189 0F 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No. l and Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned Standing Counset for Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, appearing for respondent No.4. 2 etitioner hed the C u ra e as u nder: "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in rejecting the admission of out of state students admitted to the 2nd Petitioner institution in B.Tech 2nd year Course for the academic year 2025-26 as being illegal, arbitrary u nco n stitutiona I and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith ratify and approve the admissions of out of state students numberinq 28 listed in Annexure P-1 whose admission was rejected and admitted in the 2nd petitioner institution under the left over vacant seats (spot admissions) category through Lateral Entry Category and treat the said admissions as valid for all purposes..." @ '''..3."_: --, 'i,-, - \. \, SN, J \\'p_251u9 2025 brief as oer I n 2

3. Th e c se of to n averm n sm a ern d vit fi e u ort of the re e w T for impa he 1st petitioner promoted the 2no petitioner institution rting training in Engineering and other technical courses. sanctioned with B.Tech Civit Engineering The 2nd petitioner was 60 seats, B.Tech CSE ( Artificial Learning) 180 SeaLs, B.Tech CSE B.Tech CSE 300 Seats, B.Tech Intelligence and (Data Science) 120 Machine Sea ts, B.Tech EEE 60 CSE 120 Seats, 60 Seats. The Seats, and B.Tech Mechanical petitioners are entitled to fill the seats which remained vacant during first year course apart trom 2Oo/o of additional sanctioned strength. The 2nd petitioner was not able to fill up the vacant seats with locals and the management quota still fell vaca nt. Therefore, the petitioners Proceeded to fili up 1 seat in civil, 1 seat in CSM, 6 seats in CSE, and 20 seats in Mechanical branches. The 3.0 respondent had the petitioners are constrained to approach this present writ petition. Aggrieved by the action of the 3.d respondent in rejecting the admission of out oF states students admitted to the 2nd petitioner institution in B.Tech 2nd year course for the academic year 2025_26, the rejected the ad m issions, Engineering t i ' { t I I I i t, { J a 3 SN, J ivP 25189 2025 petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with a direction to respondents to forthwith ratify and approve the admissions of out of state students numbering 28, whose admissions were rejected by the 3'd respondent after having been admitted ln the 2nd petitioner institution. 4 PE RUSED T E RECORD _t (A) The relevant Dortion the order dated

20.L1.2009 oasse d in W.P.No .2458L ot 2OO9 and batch is extracted hereunder: "...Except stating that the petitioners do not hail from the State of Andhra Pradesh, no other reason is stated by the respondents. This hardly constitutes any basis to refuse the approval for the admission of the petitioners. In a way, the stand of the respondents would be that let the seats go waste, but no candidate who is otherwlse eligible be admitted. Such an approach cannot be countenanced, much less, would promote national integration, or merit in education. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. It is held that in case the petitioners hold the qualifications prescribed under the Rules, they shall be entitled to pursue the courses. There shall be no order as to costs." 4 \ SN, J wP-25189 202j (B) The o .o7. 2 72 a s hereund er: e eva t orti n t P o.3 9 2o d r a ed o 1i x r ct d "...I h,ave heard Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned Standing Counsel for ApSCHE, appearing for respondent No.2. The learned Standing Counsel for ApSCHE submitted that the issue were dearr with by,r:rt":t""rt,'"oT't":::,t::::; 20.77.2009, in W.p.No.24581 of 2009 and batch, wherein this Court has given exhaustive directions as to how the claim of the persons similar to the petitioners herein need to be considered. In view of the same, this Writ disposed of in terms of Lhe said Order direction that the reasons and directions therein ;hall form part of this order. Petition is with the contained Arj a sequet, WpMp.Nos.39664 & 39665 of 2011 and 11343 ot 2Ol2 are disposed of.,,

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalt of the petitioners submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 20.11.2009 passed in W.p,Nos.24SBI, 24462, 24SgO, 24708, 2470g,24716, 24765, 24766, 2477 7, 24792, 24876, 24857 and 24g64 of 2009. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submits that the subject issue is also covered by the r , I I I 5 SN. J wp 251E9 2025 order of this Court dated 05.07.2012 passed in W.P.No'31962 of 2011 and the order dated 26.11.2014 passed in W.P'No.36003 of 2014. 6 h lea rn h lf of th respo nd entsd oes not disoute the said sub issrons m ade a oDea rlno on behalf of the bv the lea rned counsel Detitione rs. 7 Takinq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The order, dated 2O.11.2OO9 passed in W'P' Nos'24581 & batch(referred to and extracted above) d) The order, dated 05.07.2O12 passed in W.P.No'3t962 of 2O11. e) The order, dated 26.11.2O14 passed in W.P.No.36OO3 ot 2OL4. 6 \ l 1. Y SN, J wp_25189 2025 The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 20.11.2009 passed in W P. Nos.24581, 24462, 2459C , 24708, 24709, 247L6, 24765, 24766, 2471t, Z4tg2, 24gL6, 24g57 and 24864 of 2OO9 wherein thas Court has given exhaustive directions as to how the claim of the persons similar to the petitioners herein need to be considered. fn view of the same, this Writ petition is disposed of in terms of the said Order with the direction that the reasons and directions contained therein shall form part of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if Petition, shall stand closed. any, pending in this Writ //TRUE COPY' SD/-G. JYOTHI ANT REGISTRAR \ \ S CTION OFFICER To, Hisher Education Department, secretariat Buitdinss, Telangana state councit for Higher Education, Masab rank, ] i.t" ,i;m:;!jecretav ' ,'f3:r"rti:i3rv ' &,:"'ir"i:;?i't J3;5351 .*,!?3#:3:Iiar Jawaharral Nehru rechnotosicat University, Kukatpaily, 2025 (Adm issions), sankethika Vidya Bhavan, &

5. Ohe CC to SRI P PANDU RANGA REDDY, Advoc-ate [OPUC] ^ 6 i;; cc.io-cp FoR HIGHER EDUCATION ,High court for the state ot z ii,"'ctrl" 5ni pnnsHnkAR pERl,sc for JNTU lPoucl 8. Two CD CoPies Telanqana at HYderabad IOUTI (Along with a copy of the order dated 20.1 1 2009 in W P. NO. 24581 of 2009) BS& BIM n i Y # & 4t {r \ CC TODAY "t HIGH COURT DATED:1311012025 {F , * '4. s Ll.. ORDER i WP.No.25189 of 2025 Tl€ R IJ T4 t o O I1 * ol>.n'!'. f i{i t +

4. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lD $ \ .f THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY o 1 24462 2 2 709 2471 24

24766. 2477 1. 24792. 2481 6. 24857 and 24864 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced a Scheme for lateral entry vide its orders in G.O.tr/s.No.61, Higher Education (EC) Department, dated 26.05.2006. This provides for admission of Diploma Holders in Polytechnic Courses into ll year of Undergraduate Provisional Courses in Engineering (including Technology) and Pharmacy in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The admission of such candidates is by conducting an entrance examination called E.C.E.T- This was supplemented by G.O.lVs.No.58, dated 12.05.2008, extending the same facility to the candidates, who possessed B.Sc. degree in IVlathematics. After entrance examination is conducted, the selection process is undertaken by two agencies namely, the Convenor appointed by the Government i.e. S.W.1 and the Convenor appointed by the Consortium of private colleges, S.W.2. For the current academic year, E.C.E.T entrance examination was conducted and this was followed by counselling by S.W.1 between 29.06.2009 to 1 1 .07.2009 and by S.W.2 between 17.O7.2009 to 19.07.2009. It emerged that the number of qualif ied candidates is Iess than the number of available seats. Therefore, the leftover seats were made over to the colleges enabling lhem to fill them duly tollowing the prescribed procedure. This facility is known as spot admission. The petitioners in these writ petitions are diploma holders in civil or meclranical engineering in polytechnic. While some of them appeared in lhe entrance examination, others did not. They availed the facility of spot admission and loined the respective colleges. As required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Common Entrance Test for Diploma Holders for admission into 8.E., B.Tech.. and B.pnarm Courses Rules, 2004 (for short'the Rules), the list of admitted candidates was submitted to the State Council of H gher Education, the second respondent in all the writ petitions, for approval. Through proceedings of diflerent dates, the Council refused to approve and ratify the admission of lhe petitioners on the sole ground that they belong to other States. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. They contend that nowhere in the Rules, any disqualilication is attached to the candidates f rom outside and that the A.P. Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 (for short ,the presidential Order') would get attracted only when the available seals are less than the qualif ied candidates. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-aifidavit is filed. lt is stated that the Rules are clear to the effect that the only local candidates are eligible to be admitted into the seats through the process ol lateral entry and not others. According to them, the petitioners who are admittedly from t. i I I I outside the State are not entitled to be admitted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Council. The concept of reservations was introduced to protect the interests of weaker sections or downtrodden as an exception to the general rule of merit. Over the period, not only the categories of reservations proliferated, but also the method of reservation has expanded to an extent that admission by merit is reduced to a minuscule. The mind set of the authorities has been tuned to such a level that even where the candidates belonging to a particular reservation category are not available. they prefer to keep the seats vacant or permit them to gc waste, than to admit the other eligible and more meritorious candidates who seek admission. This, however, is a larger question. The Presidential Order provides for reservation of 85% of the available seats in favour of local candidates in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This has the backing of A(icle 371-D of the Constitution of lndia. The necessity to enforce this rule of reservation would arise only when the seats are less compared to the number of candidates seeking admission. Reservation, be it under the Presidential Order, the one relating to the social categories would virtually become irrelevant, when every possible candidate from the respective category is accommodated and still the seats are vacant. It has already been mentroned that quite large number of seats remained vacant and on account of non-availability of the ) ' i : a : , a I i I I , candidates, both the Convenors handed over the unfilled seats to the managements of the institutions to fill them, through the process of spot admission. lt is true that even for making spot admissions, the institutions have to follow the rules of reservation. However, where the candidates of a part cular category are not available, the seat can be offered to anyone on the basis of merit and subject to eligibility. lt is onty when a candidate belonging to a particular reserved category is denied admission despite his entitlement, that the admission of a candidate who does not belong to that category, but admitted against the seat, earmarked for the category. cannct be approved. Except stating that the petitioners do not hail from the State of Andhra Pradesh, no other reason is stated by the respondents. This hardly constitutes any basis to refuse lhe approval for the admission of the petitioners. ln a way. the stand of the respondents would be that let the seats go waste. but no candidale who is otherwise eligible be admitted. Such an approach cannot be countenanced, much less, would promote national integration, or merit in education. Accordinqly, the writ petitions are allowed. lt is held that in case the petitioners hold the qualifications prescribed under the Rules. they shall be entitled to pursue the courses. There shall be no order as to costs. REDDY,J L.NARASIMHA