Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 318
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
MGR Educational Society - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 23539, 23584, 23639, 23651, 23655, 23657, 23660, 23682, 23683 and 23685 Of 2024
Decided On : 02-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : TARUN G. REDDY
For the Respondent:ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL
The court upheld the authority of the state to regulate educational institutions under Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982, emphasizing the need for fair and reasoned decision-making without discrimination.
Headnote:(A) Telangana Education Act, 1982 - Section 20 - Writ petitions challenging rejection of requests for increase in intake and merger of courses - Petitioners alleged discrimination based on political affiliations - Court found no arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 - Respondents failed to provide adequate reasons for rejection, leading to judicial scrutiny. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 50, 54)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process and not to substitute the authority's decision. (Paras 49, 50)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, educational institutions, sought to increase intake and merge courses as approved by AICTE and JNTU, but faced rejection from the respondents citing lack of need and infrastructure. (Paras 4, 5, 8)
Findings of Court:
The rejection orders were found to lack sufficient reasoning and were arbitrary, but the court upheld the respondents' authority to regulate educational institutions under Section 20 of the Act. (Paras 50, 54)
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioners' requests was arbitrary and discriminatory, and whether the respondents provided adequate reasoning for their decisions. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while the state has the power to regulate educational institutions, it must do so without discrimination and with proper reasoning. (Paras 54)
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate General and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. M. Mehaboob Ali, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned Standing counsel for JNTU.
2. Lis involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same. Therefore, they were heard together and decided by way of this common order.
3. The Societies, the Colleges run by the Societies and Secretaries of the Societies are before this Court.
4. This is third round of litigation. To modify/enhance, intake of seats and merger of Courses, the petitioners submitted applications before All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and also Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) Hyderabad. The same were considered and permissions were accorded permissions. Even then, respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 did not permit the petitioners from running its courses of B.Tech, CSE, with the additional intake on the basis of the merger of courses as approved by the AICTE. Therefore, petitioners filed writ petitions vide W.P.No.19291 of 2024 and batch. Vide order dated 19.07.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petitions directing respondents 1, 2, 4 and 6 to examine the case of the petitioners for increase in intake in the existing courses and also adjustment of seats in other Courses as approved by AICTE and JNTU and for inclusion of colleges in the counseling process for the Academic Year 2024-25. This Court also directed the said respondents to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
5. In compliance with the said order, respondents passed orders rejecting the request made by the petitioners for increase and intake and for merger of certain Courses for the Academic Year 2024-25.
6. Challenging the said rejection, the petitioners and others filed writ petitions vide W.P.No.20468 of 2024 and batch. Vide common order dated 09.08.2024, this Court dismissed the said writ petitions. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said common order, the petitioners and others preferred intra-court appeal vide W.A.No.953 of 2024 and batch. Vide common judgment, dated 13.08.2024, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeals by setting aside the impugned rejection orders therein and also common order dated 09.08.2024 of learned Single Judge. Division Bench directed the Higher Education Department to consider claim of each of the appellants and take a decision in accordance with law expeditiously. Division Bench also directed respondents therein to take a fresh decision on the claims of the appellants in accordance with law and for that purpose, if necessary, time table/schedule of counseling may be appropriately modified so that a meaningful consideration of each of the appellants’ claim takes place. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits, Division Bench disposed of writ appeals with the aforesaid directions.
7. In compliance with the said judgment, vide order dated 23.08.2024 and 24.08.2024, 1st respondent rejected the request made by the petitioners. Challenging the said impugned orders, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.
8. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions contending that vide common judgment dated 13.08.2024 in W.A.No.953 of 2024, Division Bench of this Court directed respondents therein to take a fresh decision on the claims of the appellants in accordance with law. They have not considered the claims properly and rejected the claims without assigning reasons properly. In the aforesaid common judgment, this Court held that in the absence of reasons, conclusions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Even then, respondents did not give conclusions properly. They have not exercised their power under Section 20 o
