Dismissed

Karunamayee Educational Society, v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Telangana HC1 Sept 2016WP/26130/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad's refusal to grant affiliation for a B. Pharmacy course. Holding that current academic year admissions were over, the Court directed reconsideration only for the next year and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no reconsideration for the current academic year.

Karunamayee Educational Society, Vs Jawaharlal… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 26130 of 2016

¶5

ORDER: (Per VRS,J)

¶6

Aggrieved by the refusal of the 1^st respondent University to grant affiliation to B. Pharmacy course, the petitioners came up with the above writ petition, challenging not only the refusal to grant affiliation, but also the Affiliation Procedure and Regulations of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad of 2016.

¶7

Heard Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned counsel for the

¶8

petitioners, and Mr. A. Abhishek Reddy, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent University.

¶9

On the basis of an inspection conducted on 02.04.2016, the 1^st respondent University slapped a deficiency report on 20.05.2016. The petitioners came up with a writ petition in W.P.No.23423 of 2014. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed directing the University to look at the rectification report, give an opportunity to the College, and to pass fresh orders.

¶10

Pursuant to the said direction, the 1^st respondent University examined the compliance report, gave an opportunity to the College

¶11

VRS,J & ANIS,J WP No. 26130 of 2016

¶12

¶13

and, thereafter, passed a fresh order, dated 02.08.2016. The relevant portion of the order, dated 02.08.2016, of the University reads as follows:

¶14

“As per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the data submitted by the College was verified. Following are the observations:

¶15

In the deficiency report generated from the FFC report, deficiencies in faculty for various groups were indicated. Opportunity was given to college to make up the deficiencies in the appeal report uploaded by the College.

¶16

In the appeal report, the college submitted 3 candidates for compliance and 2 candidates for re-verification. Of the 3 candidates, 1 candidate has false PAN, therefore ineligible and 2 are Pharmacology specialization. In the reverification candidates, 1 candidate is absent and 1 candidate does not have PAN CARD.

¶17

The College has not made any effort in their submission to make up the deficiencies pointed out for the said candidates.

¶18

Further, for Group-IV, Pharmacology, there are no faculty. Hence, deficiency continues.

¶19

After a thorough re-verification of the data and consideration of your representation, the University is of the view that there is no change in the fact situation or circumstances which warrant any interference/changes to the order passed vide communication dated 01.07.2016.”

¶20

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

¶21

order, dated 02.08.2016, is based upon the factually incorrect details,

¶22

and that after the mistakes were brought to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor concurred with the same and

¶23

VRS,J & ANIS,J WP No. 26130 of 2016

¶24

¶25

agreed to reconsider. But, we do not know how it is possible during the pendency of a challenge.

¶26

Be that as it may, the admissions to the current academic year are already over. Therefore, any reconsideration, either on existing material or on new material, can take place only for the next academic year. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶27

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the

¶28

writ petitions shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶29

__________________________
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
____________________
ANIS, J.
1 st September, 2016
cbs

¶30

VRS,J & ANIS,J WP No. 26130 of 2016

¶31

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN 

¶33

AND

¶34

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶35

Writ Petition No. 26130 of 2016

¶36

(Per VRS,J)

¶37

1^st September, 2016

¶38

cbs

Karunamayee Educational Society, v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karunamayee Educational Society, v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

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

The Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Vs M/s R.R.Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Rain Cements Limited. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

J.B. Educational Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Smt. Sura Sumalatha, Vs The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the States

Chandragiri Preethi Raj Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary

Smt. Killamsetty Eswari Vs Pedada Tulasi Rao (died) per LRs RR-7-10