SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2087

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Princeton College of Pharmacy – Appellant
Versus
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 29848 of 2025
Decided On : 09-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K Pradeep Reddy
For the Respondent: Prabhakar Peri (SC For Jntu)

Universities must issue notifications for autonomy within 30 days per UGC regulations; failure to comply leads to deemed approval for autonomous status.

Headnote:(A) University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2023 - Regulations 4.1, 4.2 - Grant of autonomous status - The Petitioner institution, having been conferred autonomous status by UGC, was entitled to a timely notification from the parent University, failing which a deemed NOC is granted - The University failed to issue the notification as mandated, despite repeated representations from the Petitioner. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 10, 16)

(B) Procedural fairness and timelines - It is incumbent upon the University to act within the stipulated 30-day period as per UGC Regulations- Delay in issuing notifications without justifiable cause is arbitrary and undermines the institution's operations. (Paras 7, 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a pharmacy college, was granted autonomous status by the UGC on 28.02.2025 for five years but was denied notification to function autonomously by the parent University despite payment of requisite fees and multiple follow-ups. (Paras 3, 6, 11)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Respondent University failed to adhere to UGC regulations and denied the Petitioner its right to operate as an autonomous institution, violating procedural propriety. (Paras 16)

Issues: The main issues included whether the University adhered to UGC regulations regarding the conferment of autonomous status and its failure to issue the requisite notification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the University had a legal obligation to issue the notification within 30 days post-UCG conferment, which was breached, therefore the Court ordered compliance. (Paras 16)

Result: Writ Petition allowed; Respondent directed to issue notification for the Petitioner institution to function as an autonomous institution from the academic year 2025-26.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks issuance of autonomous status notification. (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioner argues university's failure to respond constitutes approval. (Para 5 , 6)
3. regulation 4.1 presumes non-objection after 30 days. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. past judgments reinforce obligation to issue notifications. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. contradictions in respondent's claims weaken their argument. (Para 14 , 15)
6. court mandates respondent to comply with ugc regulations. (Para 16)

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned Standing Counsel for Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU), appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri M.P. Kashyap, learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and Sri A.P. Suresh Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TG EAPCETB, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“……to issue a Writ, Order or direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 University in not issuing the notification as required under the University Grants Commission Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges Regulations 2023 and not permitting the Petitioner Institution to operate as an autonomous institution from the Academic Year 2025-26 inspite of conferment of Autonomous status by the Respondent No.2 in its orders Dated 28.02.2025 as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, against to the Principal of Natural Justice and consequently Direct the Respondent No.1 University to issue a notification for the Petitioner Institution to function as an Autonomous institution and grant the Petitioner Institution all the privileges of autonomy from the Academic Year 2025-26 onwards and pass any such other orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under:

i) The petitioner is a registered charitable educational society running Princeton College of Pharmacy, which is affiliated to the 1st respondent University and accredited by NAAC with “B++” grade. Pursuant to the UGC Regulations, 2023, the petitioner applied through UGC portal for grant of autonomous status and also sought a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the 1st respondent University as required under Regulation 4.2 of UGC Regulations, 2023 duly paying the prescribed fee and submitting all necessary documents.

ii) Upon scrutiny and expert appraisal, the UGC found the petitioner institution eligible and, by orders dated 28.02.2025, the 2nd respondent had granted autonomous status for five years i.e., from the academic year 2025-2026 to 2029-2030, directing the 1st respondent University to issue the necessary notification within 30 days to enable the institution to function as an autonomous college from the Academic Year 2025–26.

iii) Inspite of repeated representations submitted by the petitioner dated 25.03.2025, 02.06.2025, 17.06.2025, 02.07.2025, 05.08.2025, 12.08.2025 and 19.08.2025, the Respondent University has failed to issue the notification, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner, particularly affecting admissions during the ongoing EAPCET-2025 counselling process. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, in particular, paragraph Nos.11 to 13 are extracted hereunder:

“11. In reply to P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top