Partly allowed

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v. Mnr College of Engineering and Technology

Telangana HC5 Jan 2016WA/649/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court permitted the respondent-college to continue B.Tech (CSE) courses but ordered the transfer of students admitted to the B.Tech (Mechanical) course to recognized institutions due to subsisting deficiencies. The college was directed to refund fees.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to continue B.Tech (CSE); B.Tech (Mechanical) denied with directions to transfer students to recognized colleges and refund fees.

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Vs Mnr… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

W.A.No.649 OF 2015

¶3

PC: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶4

Heard learned Advocate General (TS) for the appellant and Mr.C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondentcollege/institution.

¶5

On 30.12.2015, we have directed re-inspection of respondentcollege by the University and the Assistant Registrar of this Court and file report by 05.01.2016. The reports of the University and the Assistant Registrar are placed on record. We have perused the reports.

¶6

The subject matter of the writ appeal is confined to B.Tech (CSE and Mechanical) courses. The latest reports of University and the Assistant Registrar disclose that the respondent-college has removed the deficiencies pointed out by the Joint Inspection Report insofar as B.Tech (CSE) course is concerned and the learned Advocate General, having regard to the status of compliance by the respondent-college, fairly states that the respondent–college ought to be allowed to continue students admitted in B.Tech (CSE) for the academic year 2015-16. Accordingly, insofar as B.Tech (CSE) course is concerned, the 1^st respondent-college is permitted to continue the course for the academic year 2015-16.

¶7

Insofar as B.Tech (Mechanical) course is concerned, we have carefully considered the objections pointed out by the University and the omissions pointed out by the Assistant Registrar of this Court. In our view, the deficiencies pointed out by the University are still subsisting and by virtue of such deficiency, the respondent-college ought not to be allowed to continue the students already admitted in B.Tech (Mechanical) course. The learned Advocate General in terms of our earlier order has

¶8

agreed to transfer the students admitted in B.Tech (Mechanical) course under convenor and management quotas to a college having recognition. His statement is recorded and accepted.

¶9

The students admitted in the aforesaid course under convenor quota are directed to approach the convenor within a period of two weeks from today for transferring them to a recognized/affiliated college. The convenor shall take steps to accommodate/transfer these students in recognized college within ten days there from. The students admitted under management quota are directed to approach the Registrar, JNTU within a period of two weeks from today. The Registrar, JNTU is directed to accommodate the students admitted under management quota within a period of ten days there from.

¶10

With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. It is needless to mention that the order impugned in the writ appeal renders ineffective insofar the respondent-institution/college in W.P.No.20052 of 2015. The respondent-institution shall refund the fees paid by students to be transferred as aforementioned within a period of one week from today. The students transferred/ accommodated in other recognized institutions/colleges are subject to fee adjustment, if any.

¶11

It is made clear that for the ensuing academic year, it is open to respondent-college to apply for affiliation/approval for the courses it intends to run in its college and the request would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders are passed by the competent authority before the academic calendar commences.

¶12

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

¶13

_____________________

¶14

DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ

¶15

S.V.BHATT,J Date: 05.01.2016 Lrkm

¶16

Note: Issue CC forthwith

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v. Mnr College of Engineering and Technology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v. Mnr College of Engineering and Technology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajjela Narasimha Reddy, Vs The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa

Broiler Farmers Association (Regd.No. 1909/2004) Vs Union of India

L.v.Ramana S/o. Late Satyanarayana Vs The Union of India

D. Krishna Kishore, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Md. Vali Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by The

J.C.Sugars Vs The State of a.P.Department of Industries and