Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Vignan Educational Development Society and another – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. No.9218 of 2020
Decided on : 01-08-2022
Andhra Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2016 - Section 10(3), 4 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 - University Grants Commission (UGC) Act - Section 2(f) - Permission to establish University - Include names of petitioners in schedule - Petitioners declaring action of respondents in not including names of petitioners and for a consequential direction to respondent to include names of writ petitioners in schedule of said Act – Held, If Government found that compliance submitted by petitioners with regard to its possessing infrastructural facilities, recruiting faculty and other staff etc., as satisfactory, it ought to have sent a letter to that effect and allowed petitioners to commence classes from academic year 2019-20 and also ought to have included its name in schedule within stipulated time - Without undertaking this exercise, it only sent a dissent letter - It appears even by now also, Government have not made it clear whether petitioners have complied with all terms and conditions as per statute to its satisfaction or whether any shortcomings were there so as to comply with same – Court is constrained to observe that respondent Government has left matter in fluid stage for considerable period causing hardship to petitioners - Therefore, a direction has to be issued to respondent Government to act upon within stipulated time - Writ petition is disposed of.
ORDER:
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not including the names of the petitioners in the schedule of the Andhra Pradesh Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2016 (for short, ‘The APPU Act, 2016’) as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of the aforesaid Act and for a consequential direction to the respondent to include the names of the writ petitioners in the schedule of the said Act.
2. The petitioners’ case succintly is thus:
(a) The 1st petitioner is a Society registered in the year 1986 with an object to promote higher education, particularly technical and professional education. The 1st petitioner already established Physiotherapy, Nursing, Degree and Junior colleges at various places including at Ongole and Sattenapalli. While so, the 1st petitioner made an application dated 07.05.2018 to the respondent seeking permission to establish the 2nd petitioner University under the APPU Act, 2016. The petitioner submitted its proposal and project report in the prescribed format. On perusal of its proposal, the Government have issued G.O.Rt.No.251 dated 02.11.2018 constituting an Expert Committee to evaluate the proposal and give its recommendations as mandated under Section 8 of the AP Private Universities Act, 2016. The Committee have comprehensively evaluated the proposal in its meeting held on 03.11.2018 and made recommendations. Basing on the said recommendations, the respondent issued Letter of Intent (LOI) No.674244/ECE/A2/2018 dated 22.01.2019 to the 1st petitioner for establishing the 2nd petitioner-University. In the said LOI, the respondent has specifically asked the writ petitioners to consider the feasibility of starting classes from the Academic Year 2019-20. As per the APPU Act, 2016, when once the LOI is issued by the respondent, the writ petitioners are entitled to disseminate knowledge as per Section 4 of the said Act. The writ petitioners have written a letter dated 01.02.2019 complying all the provisions of the Act as required by the respondent.
(b) While so, respondent issued letter No.674244/EC/HE/2018 dated 07.08.2019 informing the petitioners that in their advertisement for admissions for the Academic Year 2019-20, the writ petitioners have stated as if OSG University is recognized under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, but until the inclusion of the name of the University in the schedule of the Act, the University is not deemed to be recognized by the UGC and thus directed the writ petitioners to withdraw the process of admissions immediately. The 1st petitioner sent a detailed reply dated 14.08.2019 explaining therein as to how its advertisements were in accordance with the provisions of the law and requested to include the name of the writ petitioners in the schedule of the Act.
(c) While so, the A.P. Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission also issued a letter dated 20.01.2020 with similar allegation and sought for the explanation of the petitioners. To this letter also, the petitioners submitted a detailed reply dated 12.02.2020. Thereafter, there was no response from the said Commission.
(d) While so, basing on the complaint of Smt. Anuradha, the former wife of the Chairman and Director of the 1st petitioner, the respondent addressed a D.O. letter dated 02.03.2020 to the District Collector, Prakasam District, basing on which the Collector stated to have conducted an inquiry through RDO, Ongole behind the back of the writ petitioners which is not an enquiry in the eye of law. The RDO, Ongole submitted report to the District Collector, Prakasam on 03.03.2020. The writ petitioners having come to know about the said fact, addressed a detailed letter dated 18.05.2020 to the RDO, Ongole and the District Colle
The issuance of a Letter of Intent does not grant full-fledged permission to establish a University, and the Government is entitled to ensure compliance with the conditions before permitting the peti....
The exercise of discretion by the State Government under Section 109(3)(d) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 must be judicious and reasons must be recorded for granting or refusing Let....
The court established that adherence to the perspective plan is mandatory for the issuance of Letters of Intent for new colleges under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act 2016.
The authority has discretion to reject educational proposals based on deficiencies, and such proposals cannot be considered after the relevant academic year has passed.
The court affirmed that decisions by the State regarding educational institutions must be justified, not arbitrary, ensuring the criteria for granting permissions are relevant and applied consistentl....
[The court established that the Maharashtra Public Universities Act mandates strict adherence to the perspective plan when granting permissions for new colleges, and any deviation from this requireme....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government must have exceptional circumstances and valid reasons, recorded in writing, to overrule negative recommendations from the Unive....
Procedural compliance in educational affiliations is critical; failure to follow mandatory guidelines leads to nullification of approval for new colleges.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the Haryana Private University Act 2006, highlighting the prohibition on affiliating or opening off-shore campuses outside the state and the req....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
