Dismissed

Simhadri Educational Society Group of Institutions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by is Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Jan 2024WP/20853/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Engineering colleges challenged limitation of lateral entry intake to 20% supernumerary quota for academic year 2016-17, seeking allocation including unfilled first-year seats. Counsel stated the cause did not survive as the admission year had passed; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Simhadri Educational Society Group of… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PFTITION NO: 20853 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Simhadri Educational Society Group of Institutions, Narapadu Village, Sabbavararam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District Rep. by

¶9

Ammulapalem Post its Director, Sri. S. Satyanarayana S/o. late Pareyya,

¶10

Vizag Institute of Technology, Dakamarri Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal Visakhapatnam District, Rep. by its Director Sri. N.G.S.N.K. Reddy, S/o.

¶11

3 Efura^Cotege of Engineering & Technology, Duggirala^{Village,Pedavegi} Mandal, Eluru West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary^Sri.V.Rama Krishna Rao

¶12

Bonam Venkata Chalamayya Engineering College, Odala Revu,^Allavaram East Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary, Sri.^B.

¶13

Mandal, Via Amalapuram Kanakaiah, S/o. Venkata Chalamaiah ^ u i q tior^oiom

¶14

5 Bonam Venkata Chalamayya Institute of Technology, Batlapalern, Amalapuram, East Godavari District Rep. by its Secretary, Sri. B. Kanakaiah, S/o. Venkata Chalamaiah, ^

¶15

B.V.C. College of Engineering, Palacherla Village,^{RajanagaramMandalEast} Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary Sri. B. Kanakaiah, S/o. Venkata

¶16

7 VITS College of Engineering, Sontyam Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam -531173 Rep. by its Secretary, Sri. Prasada Raju S/o. Satyanarayana R$aju

¶17

KKR & KSR Institute of Technology & Sciences, D.No.^{646,647,Vijanam} Padu, Village, Vatticheruku Mandal, Guntur District - 522 017 Rep. by its Chairman, Sri Koye Subba Rao, S/o. Punna Rao,

¶18

Kakinada Institute of Technological Sciences, Ambikapalli^{AgraharamVmage,} Ramachandrapuram Mandal E G Dist - 533255 Rep. by its^{Secretary,Sri.} Krishna. S/o. Gopaiah.

¶19

...PETITIONERS

¶20

AND

¶21

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by is Principal,^Secretary Department of Technical Education Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶22

The Commissioner of Technical Education, B. R. K.^{R.Bhavan,Tankbund} Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad- 500 063.

¶23

Convenor (APECET -2016), C/o Andhra Pradesh State^{CouncilofHigher} Education

¶24

¶25

Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, Represented by its Member II Floor, lEI New Building, Visvesvarayya Bhavan, Khairatabad Hyderabad-500004

¶26

All India Council for Technical Education (AlCTE), Represented by its 00^1^'^^'^ ^ Floor, Chanderlok Building Janpath, New^Delhi-110

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circurhstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the and 4«’ Respondent in limiting the intake of students to 20% under the supernumerary quota for allotment of seats in ^ courses, for the academic year 2016-2017 in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the 4*'’ respondent for counseling excluding the unfilled vacant seats of the petitioner college in respect Of the 1 year course, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the norms framed by the 5th respondent, and direct the Respondents No.1 to 4 to allocate seats to the Petitioner colleges in the lateral entry quota in the 20% supernumerary quota plus the unfilled seats of the first year. y m H'ui.

¶29

LA. NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 25587 OF 20161

¶30

tho off w w"! T that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to Students in lateral entry quota to the^petitioner colleges in the 20% supernumerary quota plus the vacancies of the first year of the respective B. Tech courses in compliance with clause 9 of Chapter VI of the Hknn^ ^ respondent for the academic year 2016-17 pending disposal of the above writ petition. ^

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioners : M/s. KALYANI GHAYAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 ; SRI C. SUDESH ANAND, ^ SCFORAPSCHE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI K. RAMAKANTH REDDY

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

¶34

¶35

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶36

WRIT PETITION No.20853 of 2016

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking

¶39

the following relief

¶40

“....to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th Respondent in limiting the intake of students to 20% under the supernumerary quota for allotment of seats in the lateral entry quota into the 2nd year B.Tech. courses, for the academic year 20162017 in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the 4th respondent for counseling excluding the unfilled vacant seats of the petitioner college in respect of the 1st year course, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the norms framed by the 5th respondent and direct the Respondents No. 1 to 4 to allocate seats to the Petitioner colleges in the lateral entry quota in the 20% supernumerary quota plus the unfilled seats of the first year and to pass....”

¶41

Today when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.Gopala Rao Amancharla, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as the matter pertains to^the engineering admission for academic year 2016-17, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further

¶42

adjudication and the matter has become infructuous.

¶43

¶44

Considering the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this

¶46

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SDI- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶51

SECTION OFFICER

¶52

One CC to M/s Kalyani Ghayal, Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

One CC to Sri C.Sudesh Anand, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

^o^CCs to GP for Technical Education, High Court of^{AndhraPradesh.}

¶55

One CC to Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Three C.D. Copies Cnr MBT

■if-

high court

dated; 03/01/2024

o
'C
- %
■s:> 2 3 JUN 2023 mi,-
‘ ■>■ 'ST;
- ^

¶61

ORDER

¶62

WP.No.20853 of 2016

¶63

dismissing the w.p WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

. AS INFRUCTUOUS

Simhadri Educational Society Group of Institutions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by is Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Simhadri Educational Society Group of Institutions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by is Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. B.Swapna Srinivas, W/o, B.Srinivasa Chowdry, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sivapriya Modern Rice Mill Vs -

M/s Sri Venkata Rama Timber Depot and Saw Mill, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bondada Pullayya Vs the State of Ap

Pydah Kaushik College of Engineering Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guntur Engineering College, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh