Sir C v Raman Institute of Technology and Sciences Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

SIR C V RAMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCES, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT SRI. BINDELA VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY ANANTAPURAMU ROAD, TADIPATRI, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -515411.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

A N D

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECRETARIAT, TULLUR, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶13

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR ANANTHAPUR, (JNTUA) ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE COUNCIL-CUM-VICE CHANCELLOR ANANTHAPUR, (JNTUA) ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS SECRETARY BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI – 110002

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 University authorities in not notifying about grant of autonomous status to the Petitioner-Institution despite having been

¶18

SRK, J W.P.No.19000 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

communicated by the apex body i.e., the 4th Respondent University Grants Commission vide its orders dated 27.05.2025 and succumbing to the pressure inflicted by the local political leaders, as being not only arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India but also in violation of the UGC guidelines and consequently direct the Respondent University in notifying the Petitioner institution as autonomous college and issue such

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 University authorities to notify about the grant of autonomous status to the Petitioner-Institution as directed by the 4^th Respondent vide orders dated 27-05-2025, pending Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and pass such

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.YELLA REDDY RAJANALA (SC FOR UGC)

¶27

2.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶28

3.D KRISHNA SC FOR JNTU ANANTHAPURAMU

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

SRK, J W.P.No.19000 of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶34

“…to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly the respondent Nos.2 and 3-University authorities in not notifying about grant of autonomous status to the petitionerInstitution despite having been communicated by the Apex Body i.e., 4^th respondent-University Grants Commission vide its Order, dated 27.05.2025 and succumbing to the pressure inflicted by the local political leaders, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondent-University to notify the petitioner-Institution as autonomous college and issue such other writ or order …”

¶35

2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Correspondent of

¶36

petitioner-College in support of the Writ Petition, in brief, are that, the petitioner-College is offering Engineering courses in various streams to the students across the State; that the petitioner-College is affiliated to 2^nd respondent-University and got approved by the All India Council for Technical Education vide Order, dated 20.03.2025. While so, the Principal of Tadipathri Engineering College, Tadipathri made a complaint to 2^nd respondent that the students of petitioner-College involved in malpractice by impersonating in B.Tech First year First Semester examination held in the months of July and August, 2023; basing on the same, 2^nd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitionerCollege, resulting in registering FIR against the petitioner-College;

¶37

SRK, J W.P.No.19000 of 2025

¶38

4

¶39

that 2^nd respondent debarred the students, who were alleged to have committed the malpractice, for four consecutive Semesters vide Order, dated 14.08.2023.

¶40

(b) After initiation of disciplinary action, a complaint was made by J.C.Prabhakar Reddy, Ex-MLA and Chairperson, Municipal Council, Tadipathri on 16.11.2024 against the Management of the petitioner-College; that 2^nd respondent appointed Inspection Committee to inquire into the allegations leveled in the complaint; that the said Committee inspected the petitioner-College and submitted report to 2^nd respondent; that basing on the complaint given by J.C.Prabhakar Reddy, 2^nd respondent lodged a complaint before Tadipathri Rural Police on 05.11.2024 and a case in Crime No.228 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner-College.

¶41

(c) While the matter stood thus, on 04.01.2025 petitionerCollege applied for grant of autonomous status before 4^th respondent; that 4^th respondent held meeting on 14.05.2025 and approved the recommendation of the Standing Committee to confer the autonomous status to the petitioner-College; that despite clear orders from the Apex Body, the same has been kept pending with 2^nd respondent without notifying that the petitioner-College was granted autonomous status. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶42

SRK, J W.P.No.19000 of 2025

¶43

5

¶44

Today when the matter has come up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, on written instructions, submits that the petitionerCollege was granted autonomous status, and to that extent the Proceedings vide Procs.No.DAAO/A2/SirCVRITS-9B/Autonomy/ 2025, dated 29.09.2025 was placed on record.

¶45

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the said proceedings, there is an objection with regard to the observation made by respondent Nos.2 and 3, which reads thus:

¶46

“The autonomy conferred is subject to the acceptance of the prescribed conditions mentioned above and such other conditions as may be imposed by the Executive Council of the University from time to time.”

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶48

when once autonomous status is granted in favour of the petitionerCollege, the Executive Council of the University is not expected to impose such other conditions from to time. It was further mentioned in the said proceedings that the orders are subject to the final verdict in Writ Petition No.19000 of 2025 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶49

SRK, J W.P.No.19000 of 2025

¶50

6

¶51

In connection with this, this Court has already passed

¶52

an Order, dated 08.09.2025 in Writ Petition No.18760 of 2025, wherein this Court held as thus: (paragraph No.12)

¶53

“In the Writ Petition on hand, 5^th respondent vide F.No.South-Central/I-43661790812/2024/EOA, dt.23.03.2024, accorded approval to the petitioner-Institution for the Academic Year 2024-25 and by then, the inspection of the Fact Finding Committee was completed and it recommended for temporary affiliation for the Academic Year 2024-2025 and accordingly, vide Proc.No.JNTUK/DAA/B2/Affi/Mandavaa Inst. of Engg & Tech.(FF)/2024-25, dated 02.01.2025, 3^rd respondent granted temporary affiliation to the petitioner-Institution for the Academic year 2024-2025, and on 04.01.2025, 3^rd respondent-University issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioner-Institution to apply for conferment of Fresh UGC Autonomous Status from the Academic Year 2025-2026. Even as per the contention of 3^rd respondent, they constituted a Fact Finding Committee on 09.07.2025 to inspect the petitioner-Institution campus. But, even prior to that, i.e. on 13.03.2025, 4^th respondent held a meeting and approved the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Autonomous Colleges to confer the autonomous status to the petitioner-Institution for a period of 10 years from the Academic Year 2025-2026 to 2034-2035, which was communicated to 3^rd respondent on 24.04.2025 and in turn, when once the autonomous status is conferred on the petitioner-Institution by 4^th respondent, 3^rd respondent has to issue notification within 30 days for the petitioner-Institution to function it as an autonomous entity. It is not the case of 3^rd respondent that they were not in the knowledge of conferring the autonomous status to the petitionerInstitution. It is thereafter, 3^rd respondent-University constituted Fact Finding Committee to inspect the petitioner-Institution. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is infirmity, much less a legal infirmity in the procedure adopted by 3^rd

¶54

SRK, J W.P.No.19000 of 2025

¶55

7

¶56

respondent in not issuing notification within 30 days for the petitioner-Institution to function it as an autonomous entity from the date of its communication to them.”

¶57

Once the Apex Body i.e., the University Grants Commission, grants autonomous status, the only option left to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is to issue Notification within a period of 30 days for the petitioner-College to function as an autonomous entity. This Court has also observed to the extent that when once the Apex Body granted autonomous status, the question of appointing Fact Finding Committee to inspect the petitioner-College would be an infirmity, much less a legal infirmity adopted by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶58

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the observations made by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the proceedings vide Procs.No.DAAO/A2/SirCVRITS-9B/Autonomy/2025, dated 29.09.2025 would be a legal infirmity and since the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already granted autonomy to the petitionerCollege, nothing survives in the present Writ Petition except directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to notify and act upon the order issued by 4^th respondent notifying the petitioner-College as an autonomous entity.

¶59

SRK, J W.P.No.19000 of 2025

¶60

8

¶61

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to act upon the Letter No.F.2-10/ 2023(AC-Policy), dated 27.05.2025 issued by 4^th respondent, in accordance with Regulation 4.2 of the University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2023.

¶62

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed

¶64

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶65

9^th October, 2025.

¶66

DNB

Sir C v. Raman Institute of Technology and Sciences v The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sir C v. Raman Institute of Technology and Sciences v The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chennupati Sambaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Audisankara College of Engineering and Technology Vs the State of Ap

K G Prasada Rao - Anr. College of Education Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Malladi Satyanarayana Srinivasa Chakravarthy, Vs The State of A.P.

M/s. Sri Venkata Sai D.Ed College Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Malladi Satyanarayana Srinivasa Chakravarthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh