APHC010427362024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 21821/2024 Between: Joseph Sriharsha And Mary Indraja Educational Society and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A RAVINDRA BABU (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2. T B L MURTHY The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) in not enabling the online portal (HEI Portal) facilitating the 2nd and 3rd petitioner colleges to submit Institutional Information for Quality Assessment (IIQA) and Self Study Report (SSR) to obtain Accreditation (Cycle-2) from 2nd respondent NAAC, on the premise of closing the portal from 30th June 2024 for undertaking the reforms is illegal arbitrary and violative of the rights of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners colleges and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith enable the online portal facilitating the 2nd and 3rd petitioners’ colleges to submit the IIQA and SSR for seeking Accreditation Cycle-2 from 2nd respondent and to consider the same in accordance with law and to pass such other order or orders...” 2. The case of the petitioners is that, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners submitted their IIQA applications dated 08.01.2024 and 11.01.2024, respectively to the 2nd respondent/National Assessment Accreditation Council. However, the said applications were rejected by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioners preferred this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent/the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), rejected the applications of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, dated 08.01.2024 and 11.01.2024, respectively, making inaccessible to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners colleges to submit institutional information for quality assessment and the Self-Study Report (SSR) to obtain accreditation from the 2nd respondent NAAC, on the premise of closure of the portal from 30.06.2024, due to change of policy and new procedure as adopted by the 2nd respondent in the midst of academic year 2024-2025. 5. 5. He further submits that, pursuant to change of policy and procedure, the petitioners are entitled to submit their IIQA applications afresh for the second time in accordance with the new procedure, without any additional fees. However, the 2nd respondent altered the accreditation procedure and introduced a new framework, namely the Maturity-Based Graded Level (MBGL) accreditation system. Under this new procedure, the petitioners are required to submit their applications online. Consequently, they were restrained from submitting their IIQA applications. Therefore, the petitioners sought for a direction to the respondent to accept their fresh applications under the new accreditation procedure by considering the fees already paid to the 2nd respondent for the earlier applications, as they are unable to resubmit them due to the changed policy, which is permissible as per the rules invogue. 6. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that as under:- “I submit that the 2nd petitioner could have submitted online IIQA on or before 30.06.2024 in the RAF with all relevant documents as per the NAAC IIQA procedure, but the petitioner did not submit online IIQA again. Two more chances with same IIQA fees (without IIQA fees) are allowed to the 2nd petitioner to submit online IIQA after Rejection. But the 2nd petitioner did not submit online IIQA again after rejection. The IIQA application if at all submitted by the 2nd petitioner will be considered as a new application only and not as a continuation of the old rejected IIQA application. Once the IIQA is rejected the 2nd petitioner has to apply afresh on or before the due date, in the instant case from 17.01.2024, but on or before 30.06.2024, since closure of the old methodology with proper notifications and sufficient time (18.01.2024 to 30.06.2024) was provided to all Universities and colleges, in case HEIs want to apply in the old methodology. The 3rd petitioner could have submitted online IIQA on or before 30.06.2024 in the RAF with all relevant documents as per the NAAC IIQA procedure, but the 3rd petitioner did not submit online IIQA again. Two more chances with the same IIQA fees (without IIQA fees ) are allowed by the 3rd petitioner to submit online IIQA after rejection. But the 3rd petitioner did not submit online IIQA again after rejection. The IIQA application if it is all submitted by the 3rd petitioner will be considered as a new application only and not as a continuation of the old rejected IIQA application. Once the IIQA is rejected the 3rd petitioner has to apply afresh on or before the due date, in the instant case not 10.01.2025, but on or before 30.06.2024, since closure of the old methodology with proper notifications and sufficient time (11.01.2024 to 30.06.2024) was provided to all Universities and Colleges, in case HEIs want to apply in the old methodology”. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned for the respondents this Court is of the considered view that, the present Writ Petition can be disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to receive the fresh application to be submitted by the petitioner under new policy and procedure as adopted for accreditation by accepting the fees already paid by the petitioners in respect of the rejected applications dated 18.01.2024 and 11.01.2024. It is further observed that, as agreed, the petitioners shall submit new applications within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such submission, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order within a period of four (04) weeks. 8. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 10.02.2025 klk 176 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.21821 of 2024 10.02.2025 kkllkk