APHC010388722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 19641/2025 Between: 1. CHAGANTIPATI SHANMUKH, S/O.CHAGANTIPATL VENKATA SUBBA RAO, AGED 23 YEARS, OCC STUDENT R/O.5-6 BESIDE VRO OFFICE, WATER PLANT STREET, KORLAMANDA, VISSANNAPETA, NTR, AP,521214. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (FAC) AND JOINT DIRECTOR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, KAKINADA JNTUK REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR KAKINADA. 5. THE CONVENER, APPGECET, ANDHRA UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI, 110070. 7. THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, SCHOOL OF BIO TECHNOLOGY, INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, JNTUK, KAKINADA 533003. ...RESPONDENT(S): SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 2 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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th and 5th Respondent in not displaying the web options in AP-PGECET-2025 for M.Tech, Bio-Technology Stream at JNTUK, despite the fact the respondent no.4 is a participating university in the AP-PGECET-2025 and having disclosed the availability of the aforesaid course, seats and more importantly the 4th respondent received extension approval from the 6th respondent for M.Tech, Bio Technology Stream during the academic year 2025-2026 and as unreasonable, illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and further offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and to consequently direct the 4th and 5th respondents to display in the web options in AP-PGECET-2025 for M.Tech, Bio Technology Stream at JNTUK and allot one such seat to the petitioner and for other eligible and meritorious candidates in the M.Tech Bio-Technology stream in the 4th Respondent University, and pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the 4th and 5th respondents to immediately display and enable the M.Tech Bio-Technology course at JNTUK in the APPGECET-2025 web options portal and to further extend the deadline for exercising and modifying web options by a reasonable period, so as to enable eligible and meritorious candidates to submit their preferences for the said course, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V S KISHORE KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. CH.S.V.SURAJ SC For JNTU KAKINADA 3. K RADHIKA The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 3 O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4th and 5th respondent in not displaying the web options in AP-PGECET-2025 for M.Tech., Bio-Technology Stream at JNTUK, despite the fact that 4th respondent is a participating University in the AP-PGECET-2025 and having disclosed the availability of the aforesaid course, seats and more importantly, 4th respondent received extension approval from 6th respondent for M.Tech., Bio-Technology Stream during the Academic Year 2025-2026 as unreasonable, illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct 4th and 5th respondent to display web options in the AP-PGECET-2025 for M.Tech., Bio-Technology stream at JNTUK and allot one such seat to the petitioner and for other eligible and meritorious candidates and pass such other order or orders…” 2. Contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, in brief, are that, the petitioner completed graduation from Vignan Foundation for Science, Technology and Research, situated at Vadlamudi, Guntur District and later, appeared for APPGECET-2025 examination seeking for entrance in Bio- Technology stream and secured State-wide 13th rank. Prior to the said examination, 4th respondent-University secured permission/ extension of approval for Bio-Technology stream for the Academic Year 2025-2026; that 6th respondent, being the statutory body under the Ministry of Education in regulating the courses, verified the circumstances under which 4th respondent-University is SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 4 running, and granted permission to extend the course approval for the Academic Year 2025-2026 on an application made by 4th respondent-University. (b) The petitioner and other students appeared and qualified in the said examination and opted for M.Sc., Bio- Technology course, but, 5th respondent played hand-in-glove with 4th respondent-university, failed to display the web options for the Bio-Technology stream at JNTUK, contrary to its earlier stand; that 4th respondent-University disclosed the Bio-Technology course as one of the available streams for the interested candidates in APPGECET-2025, pursuant of which, several students, including the petitioner appeared for the said examination, qualified with merit and opted for admission into the said course in 4th respondent-University, but, later 4th respondent-University along with 5th respondent took U-turn and deprived the seat in Bio- Technology stream by not displaying the web options. (c) That the candidates already submitted representations to 4th respondent, and it was acknowledged by 7th respondent, but there was no action till date; that the window for exercising web options remained open from 18.07.2025 to 28.07.2025 and modifications were allowed till 29.07.2025; that the petitioner and SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 5 other aspiring students were under utter chaos and tensed with the situation, as in the event of said course is not displayed, they are likely to lose the Academic Year. The said inaction not only defeats the legitimate expectation of meritorious candidates, but also constitutes a flagrant violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit, denying the contents of the petition affidavit and contending inter alia that it is the statutory function and prerogative of the University to prescribe, modify, regulate or discontinue courses offered by the University and by its affiliated colleges in accordance with the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 2008 (for brevity ‘the JNTUK Act, 2008’) and other applicable statutes, regulations and administrative procedures; that the decision to discontinue intake in a programme, is an academic and administrative decision taken after consideration of multiple factors including seat-utilization, faculty availability, compliance with statutory norms and long-term viability of the programme. (b) The power to discontinue M.Tech Biotechnology programme is an unchallenged exercise of statutory authority under Section 4 (2) (xxi) of the JNTUK Act, 2008; that the University is SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 6 vested with the responsibility to periodically review the viability and academic health of all courses and the findings in respect of enrolment below 30% for three consecutive years fall squarely within its mandate to safeguard educational standards; that the recommendation to discontinue the M.Tech (Bio-Technology) programme was taken by the University’s Apex Body after due deliberation and in exercise of its academic and administrative functions. The Minutes of the Meeting dated 24.03.2025 conducted by the Apex Body expressly recorded that the programme was recommended for discontinuation in the interest of academic quality and institutional viability; that continuing a programme with chronically low intake, imposes an unfair financial burden on both the University and other self-financing course students; that the sustained low intake, sub-par placement statistics and poor pass rates in a programme, negatively impact key performance indicators used for assessment such as, the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) and by accreditation bodies and such deterioration in measurable outcomes may, therefore, materially impair the University’s ranking, reputation and entitlement to statutory accreditations. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 7 4. Petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by 4th respondent denying the contents of the counter-affidavit, contending inter alia that the Apex Body has no statutory recognition under the JNTUK Act, 2008 to discontinue the M.Tech Biotechnology programme, therefore, any resolution purportedly passed by it, holds no legal sanctity. The Central Statutory Body Regulating Technical Education granted extension of approval for M.Tech Biotechnology course for the Academic year 2025-2026, which could not be granted without an application and declaration from the University. If JNTUK intends to discontinue the course, it should have withheld applying the AICTE approval. Even if such discontinuation was intended, it must necessarily occur prior to seeking and obtaining approval from AICTE for the relevant Academic year. If low admissions alone is the deciding factor for discontinuing a programme, then M.Tech Nanotechnology branch had only 10 admissions in 2024-2025, 0 admissions in 2023-2024 and 1 admission for the Academic Year 2022-2023; that many prospective students addressed e-Mails and representations to the University authorities expressing their willingness to join in M.Tech Bio-Technology programme, but their legitimate interest was ignored without justification. SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 8 5. Respondent No.4 filed additional counter-affidavit reiterating the contents of counter-affidavit. It is further stated that on the basis of the Official APPGECET-2025 data placed on record, out of 69 candidates, 64 students were qualified and still 15 vacant seats are available at the Andhra University College of Engineering, Visakhapatnam and ANU College of Engineering Technology, Guntur; that adequate and proximate alternative avenues for postgraduate study in Biotechnology are available at other Institutions across the State of Andhra Pradesh and in those circumstances, the petitioner cannot maintain a plausible contention that discontinuance of said programme amounts to complete deprivation of postgraduate study opportunities within the State. According to the counseling, web portal for APPGECET- 2025, M.Tech Biotechnology programme at Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada (JNTUK) was not listed among the selectable web options presented to candidates during counseling process and in view of that omission, the petitioner could not make a valid or effective web option for JNTUK; that continuance of an academic programme is a collective, institutional decision governed by academic considerations, resource SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 9 availability and regulatory norms. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Nerella S.V.Ravi Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education representing respondent No.1, Smt. K.Radhika, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, Sri Ch.S.V. Suraj, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5/Andhra University. Perused the entire material available on record. 7. A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that petitioner appeared for APPGECET-2025 examination in Bio- Technology stream and secured State-wide 13th rank. The material on record further goes to show that though, prior to the said examination, 4th respondent-University secured permission/ extension of approval for Bio-Technology stream for the Academic Year 2025-2026, later discontinued the said course by considering multiple factors such as, seat-utilization, faculty availability, compliance with statutory norms and long-term viability of the programme. 8. According to respondent No.4, the power to discontinue M.Tech Biotechnology programme is an unchallenged SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 10 exercise of statutory authority under Section 4 (2) (xxi) of the JNTUK Act, 2008, as the University is vested with the responsibility to periodically review the viability and academic health of all courses and the findings in respect of enrolment below 30% for three consecutive years fall squarely within its mandate to safeguard educational standards. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would contend that the recommendation to discontinue the M.Tech Biotechnology programme was taken by the Apex Body of the University after due deliberation and in exercise of its academic and administrative functions. 10. Indisputably, neither the petitioner nor the respondents filed the Minutes of the Meeting dated 24.03.2025 said to have conducted by the Apex Body of the University. But, as per the contents of the counter-affidavit of respondent No.4, it was expressly recorded in the said Minutes that the said M.Tech Bio- Technology programme was recommended for discontinuation in the interest of academic quality and institutional viability, as it would impose an unfair financial burden on both the University and other self-financing course students. SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 11 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that if low admissions alone is one of the key factors for discontinuing the M.Tech Bio-Technology programme, on the same account, some other courses viz. M.Tech Nanotechnology branch might also be discontinued, as the said programme had chronically low intake for the past three Academic Years. Therefore, it is contended that the act of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in not displaying web options for the said course, caused prejudice to the students, who intend to get admission in M.Tech Bio-Technology programme in JNTUK. 12. If the said contention of petitioner is taken into consideration, as per the contents of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, on the basis of the official APPGECET-2025 data, in total 69 candidates appeared for Biotechnology specialization, among them, 64 students were qualified and as per 4th respondent itself, still 15 vacant seats are available at the Andhra University College of Engineering, Visakhapatnam and ANU College of Engineering Technology, Guntur and the petitioner and others aspirants can as well choose alternative avenues for Post-Graduation study in Bio-Technology, which is available at other institutions across the State of Andhra Pradesh. Admittedly, the subject matter is with regard to displaying web options in SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 12 APPGECET-2025 for M.Tech Bio-Technology programme, and this Court is concerned only with regard to the said course and the question of low admissions in M.Tech Nanotechnology branch, is no way subject matter of the present Writ Petition. When once the respondent No.4/University is not inclined to proceed with the course, to that extent, a policy decision had been taken with regard to not continuing the M.Tech Biotechnology course for the Academic Year 2025-2026. If a course does not attract enough students, running it becomes financially unsustainable for the University, leading to potential discontinuation and this is not about falling of students, but about the viability of running the programme itself when there is too much decrease in enrolment, impacting resource allocation and faculty. 13. Admittedly, respondent Nos.4 and 5 did not open for admissions and not admitted the students. Indeed, they, at the threshold, not displayed the web options for Biotechnology course. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as an affected student, as the respondents did not commit any breach of promise. The policy decision taken by respondent No.4 cannot be interdicted in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by SRK, J W.P.No.19641 of 2025 13 this Court. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 6th November, 2025. DNB