APHC010368092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 18760/2025 Between: 1. MANDAVA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, (SPONSORED BY SRI SIVA KAMESWARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY) VIDYANAGAR, JAGAYYAPETA, NTR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANDAVA SRIDHAR, S/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 2-197, VENUS BAZAR, SRI NAGAR COLONY, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE AP STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION, (APSCHE) REP. BY THE SECRETARY, 3RD, 4TH, 5TH FLOORS, NEELADRI TOWERS, SRI RAM NAGAR, 6TH BATTALION ROAD, ATMAKUR(V), MANGALAGIRI(M), GUNTUR-522 503, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, KAKINADA (JNTUK) REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, KAKINADA. 4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION UGC, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI - 110002. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION ALCTE, NELSON MADELA MARG, VASANTH KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070. REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 Third Respondent University in not issuing necessary Notification for grant of Autonomous status to the Petitioner Institution/ College and not appointing of University Nominee for the Petitioner Institution for Institutes Governing Body and Academic Council after conferment of Autonomous Status by the University Grants Commission (UGC) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the UGC (Conferment of Autonomous Status Upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2023 and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India and against principles of natural justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the Third Respondent University to implement/ take action on the Letter vide Letter No.F.2-10/2023(AC-Policy), dated 24-04-2025 of the 4th Respondent/University Grants Commission for issuance of Notification for grant of Autonomous status to the Petitioner Institution/College forthwith, pending Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. N ASHWANI KUMAR 3. K RADHIKA The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 3 O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed praying the Court to declare the action of 3rd respondent University in not issuing necessary Notification for grant of Autonomous Status to the petitioner Institution/College and not appointing University Nominee for the petitioner-Institution for Institutes Governing Body and Academic Council after conferment of Autonomous Status by the University Grants Commission (UGC), as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2023 (for brevity ‘the UGC Regulations, 2023’). 2. Contents of the affidavit, filed by the Secretary of the petitioner-Institution, in support of the Writ Petition, in brief, are that, the petitioner-Institution is a Registered Educational Society established under the Education Category, offering various courses of Engineering Graduation as well as Diploma for the last sixteen years and earned good name and fame in the State; that the petitioner-Educational Society/College is recognized and the extension for their affiliation is being granted by 3rd respondent- University; that 5th respondent/AICTE, which is a statutory body under the Ministry of Education, Government of India, was granting SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 4 approval for various courses for every year and even in respect of the Academic Year 2025-26, Extension of Approval (EoA), dated 05.04.2025 was accorded to the petitioner-Institution in terms of Section 2 (g) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987; that in a Meeting held on 13.03.2025, 4th respondent approved the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Autonomous Colleges to confer the Autonomous Status to the petitioner-Institution and that 4th respondent addressed a Letter vide No.F.2-10/2023 (AC-Policy), dated 24.04.2025 to 3rd respondent-University, to issue necessary Notification within 30 days regarding the grant of Autonomous Status to the petitioner- Institution. (b) The petitioner-Institution approached 3rd respondent- University to issue Notification to function the petitioner-Institution as an autonomy entity and also made several representations to appoint the University Nominee for the petitioner-Institution for Institutes Governing Body and Academic Council, but 3rd respondent did not do so; that 2nd respondent vide Lr.No. APSCHE/ AC-I/Governing Body/MIET/2025, dated 10.07.2025 appointed the State Government Nominee for the Governing Body of the petitioner-Institution. SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 5 (c) As per Clause 4.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2023, once the autonomous status is conferred on the petitioner-Institution by the UGC, 3rd respondent-University has to issue Notification within 30 days for the petitioner-Institution to function as an autonomous entity, but the action of 3rd respondent-University in not issuing necessary Notification for grant of Autonomous Status to the petitioner-Institution/College and not appointing University Nominee for Institutes Governing Body, is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Respondent No.3-University filed counter-affidavit denying the contents of the Writ Petition and inter alia contending that 3rd respondent-University constituted a Fact Finding Committee (FFC) on 09.07.2025 to inspect the petitioner-Institution campus and an evaluation was made, wherein serious deficiencies were identified in student admission across multiple departments; that the petitioner-Institution had very poor student admission strength which is as follows: Admission Information: (UG/PG) Year Academic Year Sanctioned Strength (A) Admitted Strength (B) Admissions = (B/A) *100) I 2025-2026 471 In Process In Process II 2024-2025 471 139 29.51 III 2023-2024 471 160 33.97 IV 2022-2023 471 179 38.00 Total 1413 478 33.82 SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 6 (b) As per the Report of the Committee, the total admitted student strength was only 33.82% for the past three Academic Years and though the UGC may grant autonomy, the power and duty to confirm that the mandatory parameter of student admission strength, cadre ratio of Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors was satisfied, rests exclusively with the affiliating University; that the UGC Regulations, 2023 do not circumscribe or override the University’s statutory authority under the UGC Regulations, 2023, the State University Acts, and the JNTU statutes to withhold autonomy for a new course, where there is a manifest deficiency in student admissions; that 3rd respondent- University was not only entitled, but also bound to refuse recommendation of the Autonomy to the petitioner-Institution. (c) That majority of petitioner’s college Engineering Programmes are not accredited by the National Board of Accreditation (NBA), which is one of the important quality parameters; that the Principal and the Faculty are not selected by the selection process conducted by the University and there are no professional charters either for students or faculty and the petitioner-Institution scored Zero marks for this academic parameter; that the petitioner-Institution scored Zero marks for the SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 7 academic parameters such as seminars/conferences organized by the Institutes and the Research Projects sanctioned to the faculty. The Manual for Autonomous Colleges (NAAC and Ministry of Human Resource Development) mandates clear evidence of sustained student demand and robust student profiles specifically in the domain of Student Enrolment and Profile and Teacher Quality and despite these requirements, the petitioner-Institution achieved only 33.82% of its sanctioned intake over the past three Academic Years, which is a shortfall that squarely demonstrates insufficient demand and fundamentally undermines the very rationale for granting autonomous status to the petitioner- Institution. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. The petitioner-Institution filed reply-affidavit to the counter-affidavit, contending that the inspection of the Committee was completed prior to the commencement of admissions for the Academic Year 2025-2026; that 3rd respondent, based on similar admission numbers and Report of Fact Finding Committee for the Academic Year 2024-2025, issued No Objection Certificate on 04.01.2025 to the petitioner-Institution’s autonomous application to the UGC and if, the student strength was the criterion for autonomous status, the NOC should not have been issued and SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 8 even the UGC Gazette Notification clearly states that the student strength is not a criterion for granting autonomous status. It is further contended that the UGC and AICTE Gazette Notifications does not mandate University selection process for Principals or Staff in private institutions and it is a well-established practice among JNTUK-affiliated colleges to complete University selection procedures post-attainment of autonomous status. (b) That under the MoU with Edunet Foundation, skill- oriented training programmes were conducted for final and pre-final students and two student batches received awards at National and Regional showcases under the Techsaksham initiative; that through an MoU with Adiverse Technologies, Hyderabad, all the Final Year CSE students underwent a six-months physical internship at the Hyderabad company office and 40% of them successfully absorbed into the organization; that the NAAC clarified that maintaining 30% of student strength over five years is sufficient to meet affiliated college benchmarks; that the petitioner-Institution secured NAAC ‘A’ Grade accreditation with CGPA of 3.11 in its first cycle and the petitioner-Institution’s enrollment figures have consistently exceeded this threshold, affirming its strong student intake and institutional appeal; that as per AICTE Norms, penal SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 9 action involving 50% reduction in intake is applicable only when admissions falls below 30% of the approved intake continuously for five years and the petitioner-institution had not been subjected to any such penal action in the past five years; that the No Objection Certificate (NoC) issued by 3rd respondent-University on 04.01.2025 formally endorsed MIET’s application for UGC Autonomous Status for the Academic Year 2025-2026 and this endorsement reflects 3rd respondent-University’s initial recognition over the petitioner’s eligibility and preparedness for autonomy; that the petitioner-Institution fulfilled all the UGC eligibility criteria for autonomous status including (i) recognition under Section 2 (f) of the UGC Guidelines/Regulations, 2023; (ii) completion of 10 years of establishment; (iii) NAAC accreditation and (iv) NoC from the affiliating University. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Institution, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education representing respondent No.1, Smt. K.Radhika, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/APSCHE and Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3/University. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Institution would contend that subsequent to issuance of conferment letter of SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 10 approving autonomous status to the petitioner-Institution, the petitioner-Institution made representations vide MIET/Est.,/ JNTUK/Autonomous-I, dated 25.04.2025 and MIET/Est.,/JNTUK/ Autonomous-I (Reminder), dated 22.05.2025, requesting 3rd respondent to issue official Notification within a period of 30 days to the petitioner-Institution to function as an autonomous entity as per Regulation 4.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2023. 7. Learned counsel for 3rd respondent would contend that the petitioner-Institution had very poor student admission strength for the past three academic years and though, 4th respondent may grant autonomy, the power and duty to confirm that the mandatory parameter of student admission strength etc., exclusively rests with 3rd respondent, and therefore, considering all the parameters, 3rd respondent was not only entitled, but also bound, to refuse the recommendation of Autonomy to the petitioner-Institution. 8. Indisputably, the petitioner-Institution was established in the year 2007 and as per Regulation 6 of the UGC Regulations, 2023, the petitioner-Institution is entitled for conferment of autonomous status. Even, as per the contention of petitioner- Institution, they secured NAAC ‘A’ Grade accreditation with CGPA of 3.11 in its first cycle. Further, a perusal of Certificate vide SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 11 JNTUK/DAA/Autonomous Status/FF/2024-25, dated 04.01.2025, the petitioner-Institution was affiliated to 3rd respondent-University and accordingly, the petitioner-Institution was issued No Objection Certificate to apply for conferment of Fresh UGC Autonomous Status for the Academic Year 2025-2026. 9. A perusal of Extension of Approval (EoA) vide F.No.South-Central/1-44642992810/2025/EOA, dated 05.04.2025, goes to show that in terms of the provisions under the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Education), powers delegated in AICTE Act, 1987 (No.52 of 1987) Chapter-II under Section 2 (g) to regulate Technical and subsequent Regulations of AICTE, 5th respondent was directed to convey the approval to the petitioner-Institution for a period of 10 years from the Academic Year 2025-2026 to 2034-2035 as per Clause 7.5 of the UGC Regulations, 2023. Further, vide F.No.2- 10/2023 (AC-Policy), dated 24.04.2025, 4th respondent issued conferment letter approving autonomous status to the petitioner- Institution affiliated with 3rd respondent-University. 10. Regulation 4.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2023, specifically requires the parent University to issue a Notification within 30 days for an Institution to function as an autonomous entity SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 12 after the UGC confers the status and no University can refuse to issue the required Notification after the UGC has conferred autonomous status to an institution, as the UGC Regulations, 2023 for conferring autonomy, is binding on universities and obligates them to issue the Notification within 30 days. Failure to do so, or to respond on the UGC portal, will be presumed as no objection, allowing UGC to proceed with the conferment of autonomous status. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Institution would contend that after conferment of autonomous status by UGC, 3rd respondent did not issue necessary notification/orders regarding grant of Autonomous Status and raised objection that the petitioner-Institution does not fulfill the mandatory parameter of student admission strength. He placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Mahendra Institute of Technology, represented by its Principal v. The Anna University and another1, wherein, the High Court of Judicature at Madras held as under: (paragraph Nos.12 and 15) “12. This remarks were considered by the UGC Standing Committee and taking into consideration the „A‟ Grade accreditation granted by NAAC which is the eligibility requirement under clause 6.3 of 1 Writ Petition No.29486 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.29340 and 29342 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 13 the Regulations, the UGC has granted autonomous status to the petitioner College. Once UGC has conferred autonomous status to a college under Clause 4.1 of the Regulations, the role of the parent university is to issue within 30 days for the college to function as an autonomous entity. UGC Regulations is a subordinate legislation having statutory force. The University cannot rely upon its syndicate resolution passed in the year 2014 after the UGC Regulation, 2018 came into force, to defy the UGC direction. 13. ……. 14. ……. 15. This Court holds that as per the scheme of the Regulations regarding grant of autonomous status to college, after the decision of UGC, the parent university can have no over-riding power unless there is suppression of vital information/fact which has come to light subsequently.” 12. In the Writ Petition on hand, 5th respondent vide F.No.South-Central/I-43661790812/2024/EOA, dated 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, 3rd respondent granted temporary affiliation to the petitioner-Institution for the Academic year 2024-2025, and on 04.01.2025, 3rd respondent-University issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioner-Institution to apply for conferment of Fresh UGC Autonomous Status from the SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 14 Academic Year 2025-2026. Even as per the contention of 3rd 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, 4th 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 3rd respondent on 24.04.2025 and in turn, when once the autonomous status is conferred on the petitioner-Institution by 4th respondent, 3rd 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 3rd respondent that they were not in the knowledge of conferring the autonomous status to the petitioner-Institution. It is thereafter, 3rd 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 3rd 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. SRK, J W.P.No.18760 of 2025 15 13. As a result, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing 3rd respondent to act upon letter vide Lr.No.F.2-10/2023(AC-Policy), dated 24.04.2025, issued by 4th 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. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 8th September, 2025. DNB