V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the rejection of their request for the grant of a No Objection Certificate to start Pharm-D course in the 2nd petitioner- institution for the academic year 2018-19, the educational agency and the college have come up with the above writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A. Abhishek Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent- University, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education (Telangana) and Mr. K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 3rd respondent-Pharmacy Council of India.

3. The petitioners submitted an application on 26.08.2017 to the 3rd respondent (Pharmacy Council of India) for the grant of approval for starting a Pharm-D course for the academic year 2018-19. The Pharmacy Council of India insisted on the production of a No Objection Certificate from the 1st respondent-University. Therefore, the petitioners applied to the 1st respondent-University. But by a letter dated 19.08.2017, the 1st respondent refused to grant a No Objection Certificate on the ground that there was a Government policy, not to grant NOC for new institutions and new courses. Challenging the said communication and also challenging a Regulation 5.2, 5.3 and 6 of the JNTU Affiliation Procedure and Regulations, 2017, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petition.

4. The 1st respondent-University has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that as per AICTE Regulations and University Regulations, a college seeking to start a new course is obliged to seek a No Objection Certificate from the affiliating University; that the same is also in consonance with Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982; and that the Government of Telangana, after taking into consideration the local needs of the State, has decided that the number of institutions offering Pharm-D programme far exceeds the actual requirement, resulting in a number of seats going vacant. The University also contends that the validity of Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act (which is now adapted in the State of Telangana) was upheld in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society,(2005) 3 SCC 212 and that therefore, the impugned communication was perfectly in order.

5. The Government of Telangana has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that for the academic year 2017-18, the Government took a policy decision and requested the AICTE by a letter dated 29.11.2016 to declare a holiday on the establishment of new technical institutions from the academic year 2017-18 onwards; that this policy decision was based upon the details of the large number of technical institutions available in the State, wherein even the available seats are lying vacant; that the addition of more seats and more colleges will adversely impact the quality of education in the existing institutions making them financially unviable; that the fall in standards may also add to the low employability of the students; that the Government had also prepared a Perspective Plan of technical education in the State and communicated the same to the AICTE, New Delhi vide letter dated 30.10.2017 for declaring a holiday on the establishment of new technical institutions for the academic year 2018-19; that the Perspective Plan is in consonance with Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 and that therefore, the refusal of the university to issue No Objection Certificate was in order.

6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions.

7. At the outset it should be pointed out that we are concerned in this writ petition only with the issue of No Objection Certificate for starting a new course in an existing college from the academic year 2018-19. This is only the first step or first layer in a series of steps or layers to be gone through by the petitio