Isabella Mariam

The Telengana High Court Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara held that the term "locality" in Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982, cannot be equated with an entire district, and upheld the decision of the State Government in rejecting additional intake requests for certain engineering colleges. The court dismissed the writ appeals filed by the appellants challenging the orders of a Single Judge, while protecting the academic interests of students who had been admitted under interim court orders, allowing them to complete their courses.

The matter arose from multiple writ appeals challenging the orders of a Single Judge dismissing writ petitions that contested the rejection of requests for increased intake in existing courses at several engineering institutions. The appellants had previously approached the High Court in W.A. No. 953 of 2024, where the court had set aside an earlier government order on the ground of defective decision-making and directed a fresh decision. In compliance, the State passed an order dated 24.08.2024, again rejecting the intake increase, leading to the current round of litigation.

Also Read: Supreme Court Warns: ‘No Five-Star Treatment in Jail —or Superintendent Will Be Suspended’"

The appellants argued that although Section 20 of the Education Act had been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court, the State had failed to frame a policy for its application, leading to arbitrariness and discrimination. They alleged that while their institutions were denied intake increases in Computer Science Engineering (CSE) and Information Technology (IT), other institutions in the same Medchal-Malkajgiri district received approvals. The discrimination claim relied on government-prepared data showing zero increase for the appellants’ colleges while others in the district were granted additional seats.

The appellants contended that they held All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) approvals and No Objection Certificates (NOC) from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU), yet the State unjustifiably rejected their requests. They objected to the Single Judge's observation that the AICTE approval was a “clarification” rather than an “inspection,” arguing that this issue was never under challenge. They also cited admissions made under interim orders and sought protection for students who had completed three years of their four-year courses.

The State, represented by the Advocate General, relied on Section 20(3) of the Education Act, asserting that the decision must be based on the needs of a "locality" rather than a "district." Medchal-Malkajgiri district contains multiple localities, including Kandlakoya where the appellants’ institutions are situated. The State maintained that except for one institution, no other college in Kandlakoya was allowed additional seats and that the appellants’ request for 5730 additional CSE seats exceeded the total existing CSE seats in the area. The State defended the decision-making process as consistent with law and the judgment in W.A. No. 953 of 2024.

The court recorded that both parties accepted the constitutional validity of Section 20. It noted: "The lawmakers did not use the word 'District' and instead used the word people in the 'locality'." The court found that the term "locality" was not defined in the Act, allowing the government to treat different areas within a district as separate localities.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar v. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet, the Bench reiterated that a survey must be conducted to assess educational needs of the locality before granting approvals, and that mushrooming of institutions could degrade education standards.

The court rejected the appellants’ argument that Medchal-Malkajgiri district should be treated as a single locality, stating: "The appellants cannot claim parity with an institution existing in a different locality for the simple reason that the need of the locality has to be seen locality wise and not district wise." It endorsed the State’s locality-wise approach as consistent with Section 20’s purpose.

Addressing the discrimination claim, the Bench referred to the doctrine of negative equality, noting: "If one institution got the benefit contrary to law, that cannot become example for others to follow." The court upheld the Single Judge’s view that AICTE approval and JNTU NOC did not confer an indefeasible right to increased intake.

Also Read: Denial Of Admission By Private Unaided School Not Article 21 Violation | Karnataka High Court Says Writ Maintainable If Fundamental Rights Are Impinged

The court also addressed the appellants’ reliance on certain paragraphs from the 24.08.2024 order, stating that any ambiguity therein must yield to the statutory test in Section 20.

The court dismissed the writ appeals, affirming the legality of the State’s decision-making process. However, it carved out an exception for students admitted under interim orders, noting that they were already in the third year of their four-year courses and had relied on unchallenged earlier court orders. The Bench directed: "Those students who were admitted pursuant to interim order of this Court shall be permitted to complete their courses and order of learned Single Judge will not come in their way in any manner." The rest of the Single Judge’s order was approved.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants: Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel; Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel, representing Sri Tarun G. Reddy, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate General, assisted by Sri S. Rahul Reddy, Special Government Pleader; Sri M. Mehboob Ali, Standing Counsel for AICTE.

Case Number: W.A. Nos. 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 601, and 602 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sujoy Paul, Justice Renuka Yara