Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 506
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Alok Aradhe, C.J., J.Sreenivas Rao, JJ.
Vidya Jyothi Educational Society – Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075 and 1076 of 2024
Decided On : 09-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Tarun G. Reddy
For the Respondent: GP For Higher Education
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the need for a mop-up round of counselling for increased intake capacity in engineering courses, emphasizing the validity of Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act.
Headnote:
(A) Telangana Education Act, 1982 – Section 20 – Interlocutory applications for conducting mop-up round of counselling for engineering courses – Rejection of applications by learned Single Judge upheld by Division Bench – Validity of Section 20 upheld by Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B.Educational Society (2005) 3 SCC 211 – Appellants' proposal for increased intake capacity rejected by State Government – Appeals allowed directing mop-up counselling for increased intake capacity. (Paras 8, 17)
Facts of the case: The appellants, running an engineering college, sought to increase intake capacity in B.Tech courses but faced rejection from the State Government despite approval from AICTE and JNTU.
Findings of Court: The appellants made a strong prima facie case for the need for increased intake capacity and the balance of convenience favored them.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act and the rejection of the proposal for increased intake capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection of the appellants' proposal was not justified, emphasizing the need for a mop-up round of counselling to accommodate increased intake capacity.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Alok Aradhe, C.J.
Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel; Mr. P.Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel; and Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing through video conferencing; represents Mr. Tarun G.Reddy, Mr. Sairam Kanakamedala, Ms. B.Avani and Ms. Rubaina S.Khatoon, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General for the State.
Mr. M.Mehboob Ali, learned Standing Counsel for All India Council for Technical Education.
Mr. Abdul Quddus Mohammed, learned counsel appears for Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University
2. These intra court appeals emanate from an order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in W.P.No.23539 of 2024 and batch, by which the learned Single Judge has rejected the interlocutory applications filed by the appellants seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh mop-up round of TGEAPCET 2024-25 counselling for all the engineering courses for the academic year 2024-2025 by notifying all the courses offered by the appellants with full intake capacity and to permit admission in all the courses offered by the appellants.
3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are heard finally. For the facility of reference, facts from W.A.No.1062 of 2024 are being referred.
4. The appellant No.1 is a society registered under the provisions of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. The appellant No.1 runs an engineering college in the name and style of Vidya Jyothi Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as, “the institution”), where technical education in engineering and technical courses is being imparted. The institution has been granted approval by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and has also received affiliation from the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU). In view of the increase of admission of seats in some of the courses offered by the appellants, the institution sought to adjust its seats by decreasing the number of seats in other branches and by increasing the number of seats offered by the appellants in the course of B.Tech Computer Science Engineering (CSE). The said increase was sought to be achieved by the institution by reducing 30 seats from B.Tech Civil Engineering and 30 seats from B.Tech Mechanical Engineering with the course of B.Tech CSE. The appellants, therefore, submitted a proposal to the State Government for adjustment of the seats.
5. However, the proposal submitted by the appellants failed to evoke any response. Thereupon, the appellants filed W.P.No.19102 of 2024, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 19.07.2024 directing the State to consider the proposal submitted by the appellants within one week. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the State Government issued a memo dated 26.07.2024 rejecting the proposal submitted on behalf of the appellants. The appellants challenged the rejection of the aforesaid proposal in a writ petition, namely W.P.No.20537 of 2024.
6. A learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 09.08.2024 dismissed the writ petition. The appellants assailed the validity of the order in a writ appeal, namely W.A.No.953 of 2024. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 13.08.2024, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and quashed the rejection memo dated 26.07.2024 and directed the State to consider the proposal of the appellants expeditiously. The State Government thereupon, by an order dated 23.08.2024, rejected the proposal submitted on behalf of the appellants, inter alia, on the ground that the vacancies are still available in CSE branch at the appellants’ college as well as in the colleges of Moinabad locality and in the colleges located in the Ranga Reddy District wherein the appellant No.2 is located. It was accordingly held that there is no discernible need for merger of the existing courses/adjustment of seats
