LAWS(TLNG)-2024-8-17

VIDYA JYOTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

Decided On August 13, 2024
Vidya Jyothi Educational Society Appellant
V/S
State of Telangana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri D.Prakash Reddy, S.Niranjan Reddy, Sri P.Sri Raghuram and Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General, appears for the State, Sri Abdul Quddus Mohammed, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU, appears for JNTU and Sri M.Mehboob Ali, learned Standing Counsel for AICTE, appears for AICTE.

(2.) These intra-Court appeals i.e., W.A. Nos. 953, 954 and 957 of 2024 are directed against the common order dtd. 9/8/2024. However, a request is made that the nine similar writ appeals are also filed against the same common order and although they are not listed, on the request of the counsel and in the absence of opposition by the other aside, they are also clubbed with these appeals. On the joint request of the parties, they were analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(3.) The facts are taken from W.A. No. 953 of 2024. The admitted facts between the parties are that this is second visit of the appellants to this Court. The appellants, in order to modify/enhance the intake of seats and merger of courses, preferred applications before All India Council for Technical Education ('AICTE') and Jawaharlal Nehru Technical University ('JNTU'). The case of appellants is that both the statutory bodies granted them necessary permissions and the only impediment was that the official respondents have not taken any decision. The appellants at that stage preferred W.P.No.19102 of 2024 and it was disposed of on 19/7/2024 by directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to examine the case of petitioners for increase in intake of existing courses and also adjustment of seats in other courses as approved by AICTE and JNTU and for inclusion of appellants' institution in counseling process for academic year 2024-25. The learned Single Judge also recorded that in the aforesaid exercise and permission etc., there would be no financial implication on the State Government.