1. Balaji Education Society v. The State of Telangana

Heard Sri Syed Minaaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri T.Venkat Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for Kakatiya University, appearing for respondent No.4.

2. The oetitioners aoDroached the Court seekino Draver as under: "..-...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 request of the petitioners to ratify the admission of out of state students numbering 12 admitted to the Petitioner No. 2 lnstitution in B. Pharmacy and Pharm-D Courses during the academic year 2025-26 as being illegal, arbitrary u nconstitutiona I and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith ratify and approve the admissions of out of state student numbering 12 and listed in Annexure P-1 whose admission was rejected and admitted in the Petitioner No. 2 institution under the left over vacant seats (spot admissions) category and further direct the respondents to treat the said admissions as valid for all purposes......" -1. 2 SN, J ,\p l l.l71 l02i 3 The case of the etitioners in brie L as oer the averments made in the affidavit fited bv the retition ers tn l SUDD rt of the oresent writ ti(l nts slt n d € r: The 1't petitioner society promoted the 2nd petitioner institution for imparting training in B. Pharmacy rnd Pharma-D Courses. The 2nd petitioner has been granted .l proval by the Pharmacy Council of India and affiliation by the 'tr' respondent university. The 2nd petitioner institution was sa'. ioned with an intake of 100 seats in Bachelor of Pharmacy Cour; ! and 30 seats in Pharma-D course by the Pharmacy Council of ndia. For the academic year 2025-26. several Convenor Quota : eats remained vacant even after spot admissions due tc' ack of local candidates. The petitioners filled up remaining 1. vacant seats with qualified out-of-state students and requesterl for ratification of the same, after completion of the spot adn i;sion. The 3'd respondent ratified only local admissions but rejerl 3d the 12 out- of-state admissions. Aggrieved by the same, l'le petitioners approached this Court by filing the prespnt writ 1l :tition seeking a direction to the respondents to forthwith ratify E I d approve the admissions of out-of-state students and tr1 at the said ( admissions as valid. 3 SN. ] r!P_14174 2025

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- (A) The

20.11.20 o9 Dasse releva ntpo rtion of er dated t in W.P. No.24581 of 2oO9 a nd batchis 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 otherwise eligible be admitted' Such an approach cannot be countenanced, much less, would promote national integration, or merit ln educatiofl' 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." o L2 d W.P. N 1 2ot 11 i x r e hereunder: ' ...I have heard Sri Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. C.Sudesh APSCHE, Anand, learned appearing for 4 SN, J \\p l,1l7'l 2025 The learned Standing Counsel for c )SCHE submitted that the issues raised in this Writ letition weTe dealt with by this Court by Orde' dated 20.11.2009, in W.P.No.245B1 of 2009 and batch, wherein this Court has given exhaustive direc: lns as to how the claim of the persons similar o the petitioners herein need to be considered. In view of the same, this Writ Pelr on is disposed of in terms of the said order v' i h the direction that the reasons and directions r,,r tained therein shall form part of this order. As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.39664 & 39665 c'2O11 and 11343 of 2012 are disposed of."

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of he petitioners submits that the subject issue in the present ! rit petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court da rd 20.11.2009 passed in W.P.Nos.245Bl, 24462, 24590, 24708,'.4709, 24716, 247 65, 247 66, 2477 l, 24792, 24816, 24857 and'.4864 of 2009 batch of writ petitions.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of he petitioners further submits that the subject issue is 6;56 r:, ,vered by the order ofthis Court dated 13.10.2025 passed in W I . No.25189 of 2025, order dated 05.07.2012 passed in W.P. No, 1962 of 2011 and the order dated 26.11.20L4 passed in W.l) No.36003 of \ 5 SN, J wp 34374_2025 2Ot4 and also the Division Bench of this Court yrde its order dated 05.11.2015 passed in W.p. No.35335 of 2015 and hence the present writ petition could be disposed of in similar lines.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

8. The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 13.10.2025 passed in W.p. No. 25189 of 2O25, order dated 20.11.2OO9 passed in W.p. Nos.24581, 24462t 24590, 24708, 24709, 247L6, 24765t 24766, 2477L,24792t 248LGt 24857 and 24864 of 2OO9 and the order dated 05.11.2015 in W.p. No.35335 of 2015 passed by Division Bench of this Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs. M iscellaneous petitions, if Petition, shall stand closed. I / any, pending in this Writ t SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /<(9 SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat,

2. The Secretary, Telangana State Council of Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

3. The Convenor, Commissioner of Technical Education and TGEAPCET (Bi.P.C) - 2025 Admissions, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan, [Vlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028.

4. The Registrar, Kakatiya University, Warangal, Warangal District.

5. One CC to SRI SYED IU|NAAZ, Advocate. tOpUCl 6. Two CCs to GP FOR EDUCATION, High Court for th€ [ouTl jtate of Tetangana.

7. One CC to SRI f VENKAT REDDY, SC for Kakatiya Lrr iversity, Warangal, - Warangal Distrrct [OpUC] B. Two CD Copies I (Alonq with the coDies of .the . order dated 1 3.1 0 1 025 passed in W.p. fi9,!!taS of 2o2s, orOer OiteO ZOtt.io66 pJ.,, ,n Wp Nos24581. 24462, 24sso. 24708. 24709. 24716, 24164- {{ia,, +tit 247s>: ii6i6" r I _ ) 1 5 in w p rrrblbl,: 24857 and 2a8t>4 0f 2009 and the oroei oa1"o of 2015 passed by Division Bench of tfris CoL,t-to tnis ; Oei) BSK -os BS HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 CC TODAY \ I \ ELA a) *& ,,- ;$ l \!t.,\ \, o t.r- * HO i'fl ORDER WP.No.34374 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS II I I { ; t I I I I I . THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W. P. Nos.2458.l, 24462, 24590, 247 08. 247 09. 247 1 6. 247 65, 24766. 24Tt1. 24792.24816. 24a57 and 21864 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced a Scheme for lateral entry vlde its orders in G.O.lVs.No.61, Higher Education (EC) Department, dated 26.05.2006. This provrdes {or 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.Ms.No.58, dated 12.05.2008, extending the same facility to the candidates, who possessed B.Sc. degree in Mathematics. 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 11.07.2009 and by S.W.2 between 17.O7.2009 lo 1 9.07.2009. It emerged that the number of qualified candidates is less than the number of available seats. Therefore, the leltover seats were made over to the colleges enabling them to till thern duly following the prescribed procedure. This facility is known as spot admission. The petitioners in these writ petitions are diploma holders in civil or mechanical engineering in polytechnic. While some of them appeared in the 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 Enlrance Test for Diploma Holders for admission into B.E., B.Tech., and B.Pharm Courses Rules, 2004 (for short'lhe Rules), the list ol admitted candidates was submitted to the State Council of Higher Education, the second respondent in all the wrtt petitions, for approval. Through proceedings ol diflerent dates, the Councii refused to approve and ratify the admission of the 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 frorx outside anC that the A.P. Educational lnstitutions (Regulation of Admissions) Oder, 1974 (for short 'the Presidential Order') would get attracted only when the available seats are less than the qualif ied candidates. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-alfidavit 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 of lateral entry and not others. According to them, the petitioners who are admittedly from outside the Stale are not entitled lo 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 seclions or downtrodden as an exception to the general rule of meril. Over the period, not only the categories ol reservations proliferated, but also the method of reservation has expanded to an extent that admissron by merit is reduced to a minuscule. The mind set of the authorities has been tuned to such a level that even where the candtdates belonging to a pa(icular reservation category are not available, they prefer to keep the seats vacanl or permit them to go 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 ot B5k ol the available seats in favour of local candidates in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This has the backing ot A(icle 371-D of the Constitution of India. The necessity to enforce this rule of reservation would arise only when the seats are less compared to the number of candrdates 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 mentioned that quite large number of seats remained vacant and on account of non-availability of the ? ) t ( candidates, both the Convenors handed over the unfilled seats to the managements ol the institutions to f ill them, through th€' process of spot admission. lt is true that even for making spo admissions, the institutions have to tollow the rules o reservation. However, where the candidates of a particula' category are not available, the seat can be olfered to anyone orl the basis of merit and subject to eligibility lt is only when ir candidate belonging to a particular reserved category is denietl admission despite his entitlement, that the admission of ;t candidate who does not belong to thal category, but admitteti against the seat, earmarked for the category' cannot bo approved. Except stating that the petitioners do not hail from thr) State of Andhra Pradesh, no other reason is stated by thr) respondents. This hardly constitutes any basis to refuse th': approval for the admission of the petitioners. ln a way, th) stand of the respondents would be that let the seats go wast€' but no candidate who is otherwise eligible be admitted' Suc I an approach cannot be countenanced, much less, woul j promote national integration, or merit in education' Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. It is held thu t in case the petitioners hold the qualifications prescribed under the Rules, they shall be entitled to pursue the courses' Ther: shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMH,\ REDDY,J Dt:20.11.2009 J HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA T ITION N .25189 ()F o 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. I and Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned Standing Counsel for Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, appearing for respondent No.4.

2. The oetatione r aooroached the Court s ekino oraver as under: "...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 2'd year Course for the academic year 2025-26 as being illegal, arbitrary u nconstitutional 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 admissions as valid for all purposes..." 2 SN, J v.p 25llJ9 202i

3. The case of the Detitioner in brief- as per the averments made in the affidavit filed bv theq petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as und Et. The 1't petitioner promoted the 2nd petiti l rer institution for imparting training rn Engineering and other ter:l nical courses. The 2nd petitioner was sanctioned with B.Tech C \ il Engineering 60 seats, B.Tech CSE ( Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning) 180 Seats, B.Tech CSE (Data Scienr:r ) 120 Seats, B.Tech CSE 300 Seats, B.Tech CSE 120 Seats, t.Tech EEE 60 Seats, and B.Tech l4echanical 60 Seats. The F etitioners are entitled to fill the seats which remained vacant cr ring first year course apart from 2oo/o of additional sanctioned str:ngth. The 2nd petitioner was not able to fill up the vacant seats \ /ith locals and the management quota still fell vacant. Therefore, he petitioners proceeded to fill up 1 seat in civil, 1 seat in CSM, ( seats in CSE, and 20 seats in lYechanical Engineering brarrr hes. The 3'd respondent had rejected the admissions, the f 3titioners are constrained to approach this present writ petitior r. Aggrieved by the action of the 3'd respondent in rejecting the ac rlission of out of states students admitted to the 2nd petition(rr institution in B.Tech 2nd year course for the academic year 2025-26, the 3 SN, J wP 25189_2015 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 in the 2nd petitioner institution.

4. PERUSED TH E RECORD:- (A) The relevant Dortion of the order dated

20.11.2OO9 Dassed in W.P.No.24581 of 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 otherwise 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 Rutes. they shall be entitled to pursue the courses. There shall be no order as to costs." 4 SN, .I !, p l5 I re 2rlla (B) The relevant portion of the ..1 rrder dated ()5.O7.2(J72 Dassed in W.P.No.31962 of 201.L is extracted hereunder: "...I have heard Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned St rnding Counsel for APSCHE, appearing for respondent llr .2. The learned Standing Counsel for \ )SCHE submitted that the issues raised in this Writ F 3tition were dealt with by this Court by Order', dated 20.11.2009, in W.P.No.24581 of 2009 and batch, wherern this Court has given exhaustive direr: irns as to ho!v the claim of the persons similar J the petitioners herein need to be considered. ln view of the same, this Writ P€,ti1 on rs disposed of in terms of the said Order r, i h the direction that the reasons and directions cc,r tained therein shall form part of this order. As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.39664 & 39665 . 2011 and 11343 of 20\2 are disposed of."

5. The Iearned counsel appearing on behalf ol he petitioners submits that the subject issue in the present ! rit petition is squarely covered by the order ot this Court da,, d 20.11.2009 passed in W. P. Nos. 2458 t, 24462, 24590, 247 08,,.47 09, 247 16, 24765, 24766, 24771, 24792,24AL6,24857 and ,4864 of 2OO9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of t te petitioners further submits that the subject issue is also : rvered by the 5 SN, J wp_25189_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 2Ot4.

6. The learned counsel aDDearinq on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submissions made bv the learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of the petitioners.

7. Ta killq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The order, dated 20.11.2OO9 passed in W.P. Nos.24581 & batch(referred to and extracted above) d) The order, dated O5,O7.2O12 passed in W.P.No.31962 of 2O11. e) The order, dated 26.[L.2OL4 passed in W.P.No.36Oo3 of 2014. 6 SN, J (r,25189 202j The present writ petition is disposed rr ' in terms of the order dated 20.11.2009 passed in W.l) Nos.24581, 24462t 24590, 24708, 24709, 247L6, 2,t765, 24766, 24771, 24792, 24816, 24857 and 24864 of I OO9 wherein this Court has given exhaustive directions ir ; to how the claim of the persons similar to the petitaoner': herein need to be considered. In view of the same, this vU.it Petition is disposed of in terms of the said Order with the direction that the reasons and directions contained iherein shall form part of this order. However, there shal be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendinr in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. Date: 13.1O.2O25 MRS. JUSTICE SURT:I 'ALLI NANDA Note: Reoistrv is directed to aooend a copv of the order oassed in W,P.No.24581 of 2OO9 and batch to this order. iated 20 11.2009 Issue cc by 17.LO.2O25 (Bl o) Skj/dpm THE IION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA STIARIIA AND THE HOI{'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KI.IMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION Nos.35218 3522L 35231 35264 35270 35311 35335. 35754. 35757, 35759, 35763. 35877. 35879. 35892. 35902 35905 35914 35915 36223 362sr 36259 36266 36270 36272 36240 36346 36387 36505 36543 36902 36910, 37378, 37436, 375tO, 37520, 3EO14. 3EO15, 38109, 38173. 3a305. 38634, 38645, 38974. 39095. 395A4, 424L9, 42445 42541 & 429a2 of 2OLs 397 7L7 1570 2956 2960 3010. 3051. 4194. 6254, 74A6. 7536. 7545 & 30367 of 2OL6 COMMON ORI)ER rp"' tr," a.^bte tte chief tustiP satish ct@ndrc shatu) The record of the present cases revea-ls that the petitions were filed in respect of the academic years 2Oi5-16 afld 2016-17 relating to admissions into various courses. We are in the year 2022. The duration of courses is already over. Therefore, no further orders are required to be passed in the present cases. However, the question of law is left open. In case any of the petitioners have not completed their respective courses, they may be permitted to complete the same in accord€u1ce with the relevant ru1es. With the aforesaid, t.I e writ petitions stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand .: closed. Therb sha.ll be no order as to costs. SATISH CIIANDRA SIIARMAs CJ ABHINAND KI'MAR SIIAVILI, J

03.o3.2022 JSU