Dismissed

Aditya College of Engineering and Technology v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Jan 2024WP/21855/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition by Aditya Surampa Engineering College challenging the 20% supernumerary quota for lateral entry. The court held that the cause of action had not survived due to pending identical litigation in W.M.P. No. 26854 of 2016 for the same academic year.

What did the court decide?

No admission directed; petition dismissed as infructuous.

Aditya College of Engineering and Technology… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY ^
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
V
d
PRESENT (ak
TCli
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA ^
^«(no2J
WRIT PETITION NO: 21855 OF 2nifi

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO: 21855 OF 2nifi

¶4

Between:

¶5

AdityaSurampaCollege em Villageof EngineeringGandepalli &Mandal,Technology,East GodrariAditya NaaarSictADR533 437 Rep, by ,ts Principal, Sri.T.K.Rama Krishna Rap P Engineering, ADB Road, Surampalem Villaoe Via

¶6

raXn=?,'IT®?? ADB Road. Surampalem Villaoe Ste'J^asafeddy Sri. * Technology, Madhava patnam.Kakinada -

¶7

s “aL ^slfToa Ashramam

¶8

vrgrnrr3;^^^ R^rMlndtSoTya^^^^^^ sXv^4a^n“?:ZRTu Va^-

¶9

8 SlET sSMaSySS' Krishna,ah "■ ® ®'^PP^ Ro° S/o.B.S.Shiva Rama NamsaS:^:; Tellamanda Post M.V.Koteshwar Rao S/o. Venkateshwar?? ®"' - 522

¶10

233 Sfur S?C? Rep"tTr^'h'' ''' ■®' Tommalapalem Guntur Venkateshwarlu ^ ®"' M-VKoteshwar Rao S/o. ...PETITIONERS

¶11

¶12

DepartmentThe State ofof TechnicalAndhra EducationPradesh, Secretariat,RepresentedHyderabadby is Principal Secretarv^ I he Commissioner of Technical Education B.R.K.R. Bhavan,Tankbund Road,

¶13

Saifabad, Hyderabad- 500 063

¶14

. ^'-Edu^Z Council Of Higher MemSr'IrRnnr Education, Represented by its Hyd^ratad-SOOOM ” Bhavan, Khairatabad,

¶15

, 5. All India Council for Technical Education (AlCTE) Reoresented hv itc ■ Member Secretary 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building Janpath nIw Del^hllo

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

fhn Constitution of India is filed praying that in Dleaseri affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be 4:nLran^d“Tecrt^LT^^^^^^^ prufrinSlalsofthet^Ua? supernumerary quota I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016tWPMP. NO: 26854 OF stated in1hfarHt>®rfH°" circumstances P e?sed to dir^ th^ r H P®"'”"’ "'® Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the students in lateral entry quota to the velr nf fh in the 20% supernumerary quota plus the^{vacandesofthefirst} nf respective B.Tech coursp in compliance with clause 1 9 of Chapter VI nlnH prescribed by the 5'^ respondent for the academic year 2016-17 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 &2: GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: SRI C SUDESH ANAND Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI K RAMAKANTH REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER -

¶21

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶22

Writ Petition No.21855 of 2016

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners^under Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenging the^actionofthe 3*''^ and 4* respondent in limiting the intake of students to 20% under the supernumerary quota for allotment of seats in the lateral entry quota into the 2^^ year B.Tech courses, for the academic year 2016-2017 in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the 4* respondent for counselling excluding the unfilled vacant seats of the petitioner college in respect of the 1®‘ year course and are seeking a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to allocate seats to the petitioner colleges in the lateral entry quota in the 20% supernumerary quota^{andtheunfilled} seats of the first year.

¶25

When the writ petition came up for hearing on 05.07.2016,^this

¶26

Court has passed the following interim order:

¶27

“Since the case on hand is identical to the above case and having regard to the reasons aforesaid, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents to display on web the unfilled seats of the previous academic year along with the 20% of the sanctioned intake. Further, the Authorities shall inform the students about the pendency of the Writ Petition and also the order passed by this Court. Any admission made pursuant to the interim order shall be subject to result of writ petition and the students cannot claim equities. The petitioner colleges shall also give an undertaking that it will not transfer students from their college to the other college after admitting them to their college. ”

¶28

As the relief sought by the petitioners pertains to^the academic

¶29

year 2016-2017 and even in view of the interim order passed by this

¶30

¶31

in the writ petition

¶32

feels that the cause m 05.07.2016, this Court Court on would not survive.

¶33

. There is dismissed as infructuous Accordingly, this Writ Petition is

¶34

order as to costs. shall be no

¶35

in the Writ pending, if AS a sequel, miscellaneous petitions

¶36

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶37

//true COPY//

¶38

SD/-A.VUAYABABU assistant^ EGISTRAR

SECTIO 4 OFFICER

To,

Pradesh

[OUT] SUDESH ANAND Advocate lOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI C rAMAKANTH REDDY Advocate lOPUC) 4. OneCCtoSRI K 5. Three CD Copies Csb MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED: 04/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.21855of 2016

05-
O
•,C> 2 9 JUN 202'! ;
3ec?iOrt .

¶48

DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Aditya College of Engineering and Technology v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya College of Engineering and Technology v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Bondada Pullayya Vs the State of Ap

Pydah Kaushik College of Engineering Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vanhya Jayaramudu Naik. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

A.Vinod and 2 Ors. Vs Commr. of Fisheries and 3 Ors.

T. Chenga Reddy s/o late Narasa Reddy Aged about 55 Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries Government