The High Court · 2025

1. The Joseph SriharshaAND Mary lndraja Educatronal Society, (A society neg i.tiriid;.Ao. b;;;g cotonv, Vanadrariouram --Cnuii,irn "iv.x -nio''vr#;iil1i;j'r;1, reg istered u nd er A. pJe tanga na' nrei -SLc]ieii-e. -iig-h"toirt Registration No. 6624/199"6 ioz, ff[:H;:f' bv its Honorarv 2' St Mary's Grouo of rnstitutions Hyderabad, Near Ramoji Firm citv, Behind Mount opera Deishmukhi virrage c6i[lHirirv il"na"T, r'iirg";ii""di"t,f,i';;jo Batasinqaram Viflaoe, Havatffi"gii Mr';o;'( 'canga Reddy District Greater Hyderabad- sOe Oz:4 undei ITMDA "- 3. K.V.K Rao, Sio late Venkaiah aged about 54 years R/o plotNo. 102, High Court Cotony Vanasthatipuia;, HiJ;r;b";J' "- , AND ...PETITIONERS j i,.j6l o Telangana, Hyderabad Department, Nalgo"nda District Wetf a re De pa rr me n-t, sa n st h e m J ti ni *i.l-H v 1 . The State of Telanoana Represented by its principal Secretary Social 2. The State of Telangana,.Represented by its Director Social Welfare 3. The Director, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Govemment of . H",:,i:?:3t,irffi?;,l1]i"J, secretary to covt , Higher Education Dept., Amaravati, Guntur distri6t, n.p. --- "'"''

5. The State of A.p. reo. hv its prl. Secretary to Govt., Social Welfare Dept., 6. Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs, l,,lew Delhi RR 4to6 are impleaded as per C.O. dt. 27_2-11 in WpMp Tt02 ol 17 ...RESPONDENTS I Petition under Article 226 ot rhe 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 in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in granting permission for renewal of scholarships through online system to the 20 M. Tech students of the petitioner No. 1 College who were admitted during the year 2011-12 through SW_TI as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the G.o. Ms No. 66 dt.0g-09- 2010 with a direction to the Respondents to take necessary action permitting the Petitioner to renew the application for seeking reimbursement in terms of the representations of the Petitioners addressed to the Respondents dated 13-0g- 2015, 17 -o8-2o 1 5, 15-09-20i s respectively and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith grant permission for renewal of scholarships to the tune of Rs 11,40,000/- for the 2nd year of the M. Tech course for the students admitted in 2O11-2012 as per the details in Annexure A. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2O16(WPMP. NO: 54766 oF 2016) 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 consider the representation dated .13-08-201 5, 17-og- 2015 and 15-09-2015 submitted by the petitioners in the interests of justice and equity pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SRI RAM Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER / / THE HON,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO lil/RIT PETITION No. 44389 of 20L6 ORDER: lPer the Hon'ble Sri Justice J.Sreeniuas Raol This writ petition is frled for the following relief: '...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more especiatlg one in tle nature of Writ of Mand-amus declaing the inoction of the Respondents in granting permission for reneutal of sclalarships through online system to the 20 M. Tech students of the Petitioner No.l College tuho uere a-dmitted during the gear 20 1 1- 12 through SW-ITI as arbitrory, illegal and contrary to the proui.sior* of thE G.O.Ms.No.66, dt.O8.O9.2O1O with a direction to tlle respondents to take necessrlry action permitting th-e Petitioner to reneu) the application for seeking reimbursement in terms of the representations of the Petitioners addressed to the Respondents dated 13.08.2015, 17.08-2015 and 15.09.2015 respectiuelg onl. issue a onseqtential direction to the respontlerrts to forthturth grant permission for renewal of sclolarships to th.e tune of Rs.11,4O'OO0/ for the 2nd gear of tle M-Tech course for th.e students admitted in 2O 1 1 -2O 1 2 a.s Wr the detail's in Annentre A-.."

2. When ttre rnatter is taken up for consideration, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4 to 6. 2

3. Heard learned Assistant Government pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 3.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of representations submitted by them to respondents on 13.O8.2O15, 17.O8.2O15 and 15.09.2015, they have not granted permission for renewal of scholarships to a ttrne of Rs. 1 1 ,4O,OOO / - for the 2.a year M.Tech collrse for the students admitted in the academic year 20 1 1_ 2012.

5. Respondent No.3 frled counter aJhdavit on 3O.OI.2OI7, wherein it is stated that respondent No.3 has sanctioned scholarships for the academic year 2O1O-l I to all the eligible students, who produced the allotment order issued by the Convenors of CETs with 'Fee exemption", pursualt to ttre Memo No.S63g/SW/ E,dn.2/2Ot2, dated 17.I2.2Ot2 issued by Government for process of pa5rment for 2OI1_12 and 2Ol2-I3. In respect of academic year 2Ol2_13, the applications were not processed. It is further stated that / // // _) I I the students have not furnished the details of educational records of last seven consecutive years ending with the year of quali$ing examination for the course of study, basing on which ttre local criteria would be decided. It is also stated that the students have already completed their studies during 2Ol2-13 academic year i.e., before bifurcation of the State and hence consideration of representations submitted by the petitioners in the year 2015 does not arise.

6. The record discloses that the petitioners have not liled reply denying the averrnents made in the counter zrffidavit.

7. It reveals from the record that petitioners are claiming scholarstrips pertaining to the acadernic year 2OlL.12 and approached this Court and filed the writ petition on 15.12.2016 i.e., after lapse of rnore than 4 years.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that tlle petitioners are not entitled to seek for the relief sought in the writ petition. 4 {

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. I , To, //TRUE COPY// AS SD/-V. KAVITHA REGISTRAR E N OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI S.SRI RAM, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies. BSK O.BS I : I I I \ HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 1i'.:- r,.,r >i- { t) 2 0 rE0 2025 ljn41X,1 f a ,. :. .: -f u ORDER WP.No.44389 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ I