THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL Nos.572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 601 and 602 of 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Learned Senior Counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy and learned Senior Counsel Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, representing Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General assisted by Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and Sri M.Mehboob Ali, learned Standing Counsel for All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), for respondent No.4.

2. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common judgment.

3. In W.A.Nos.572, 573, 574, 575, 576 and 577 of 2025, the challenge mounted is to the common order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23539 of 2024 and batch, dated 02.05.2025, which were disposed of along with other writ petitions. In W.A.Nos.601 and 602 of 2025, the challenge mounted is to the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23541 and 23654 of 2024, dated 13.06.2025.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

4. Admittedly, for present dispute between the parties, the parties have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Court. The matter has a chequered history. However, for adjudication of these writ appeals, it is not necessary to go beyond the previous order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.953 of 2024 and batch decided on 13.08.2024.

5. In nutshell, in W.A.No.953 of 2024, which was the second visit of the appellants to this Court, the challenge was to the order dated 26.07.2024, whereby the prayer of the appellants for increase in intake of the seats in existing courses was declined.

6. Indisputably, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) approved the demand of intake of seats in the appellants’ institutions. The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) gave No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 21.03.2024. Despite the approval of AICTE and NOC of JNTU, since the request of additional intake of seats was rejected, the writ petition was filed, which came to be dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge was called in question in W.A.No.953 of 2024 and batch.

7. In W.A.No.953 of 2024, this Court found that the decision making process adopted in passing the impugned order was defective and therefore, the said order was set aside by directing the respondents therein to take a fresh decision on the claim of the appellants in accordance with law. In turn, the respondents therein passed the order dated 24.08.2024, which became the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the writ petitions, which became the subject matter of challenge in this round of litigation in the writ appeals.

CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANTS:

8. It is the common stand of Sri D. Prakash Reddy and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, that the constitutionality of Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Education Act’), is not called in question and the said provision has already been declared as intra vires by the Supreme Court. The impugned order is called in question mainly on twin grounds: i) the respondents have not prepared any policy for the purpose of taking a decision as per Section 20 of the Education Act; ii) On one hand, the request of the appellants for additional intake of seats in Computer Science Engineering (CSE) and Information Technology (IT) has been rejected and on the other hand, in the same District of Medchal-Malkajgiri, such increase of seats was permitted for various collages.

9. The whole argument relating to discrimination is founded upon a table/statement showing the approved admission