HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Friday dismissed a batch of 14 writ petitions filed by MGR Educational Society and other institutions challenging the state government’s refusal to sanction changes to course offerings and intake capacities for the academic year 2024-25.
The petitioners had sought permission for the introduction of new courses, increase or reduce intakes and the merger or closure of certain courses in their institutions.
In his orders, Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy said that the actions of the state government were neither illegal nor arbitrary, and did not violate the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The court concluded that the state government acted within its powers under Section 20 of the Education Act, which allows the government to maintain parity among institutions, address the educational needs of the locality, and prevent unhealthy competition among educational institutions.
The petitioners, represented by senior counsel D Prakash Reddy, argued that institutions like CMR College of Engineering and Technology had already provided the necessary infrastructure and faculty and had received a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad (JNTUH) for the proposed changes. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) had also granted approval after an inspection confirmed compliance with relevant regulations. The petitioners contended that the state’s refusal to sanction these changes was arbitrary, especially since similar approvals were granted to other institutions.
In response, Special Government Pleader S Rahul Reddy, representing the principal secretary of Higher Education department and the Commissioner of Technical Education, argued that the petitioners’ NOCs were conditional and subject to the state government’s approval, particularly concerning the availability of faculty and infrastructure. The government said that its decision was aimed at rationalising intakes and maintaining academic standards across institutions, rather than being influenced solely by financial considerations.
The government also highlighted concerns about the rapid increase in intake capacities and the establishment of new courses in existing institutions, particularly in the vicinity of Hyderabad. The SGP pointed out that AICTE approvals were based on self-disclosed information from the petitioners and that an Expert Visiting Committee (EVC) inspection had not been conducted. Furthermore, the AICTE had ceased linking additional intakes or new colleges to National Board of Accreditation (NBA) accredited courses for the 2024-25 academic year, reinforcing the government’s stance on curbing the uncontrolled growth of professional education institutions.
After considering the arguments from all parties, the judge found no grounds to interfere with the government’s decision.