APHC010627302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 32408/2025 Between: 1. KMR LAW COLLEGE, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT SRI. K T PRASAD NAGARI ROAD, NEAR PARAMESWARAMANGALAM, PUTTUR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, TULLURU, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS SECRETARY NEELADRI TOWERS, 6TH BATTALIAN ROAD MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH 522503 3. SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR PRAKASAM ROAD SRI PADMAVATI MAHILA VISWAVIDYALAYAM, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517502 4. SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL PRAKASAM 2 ROAD SRI PADMAVATI MAHILA VISWAVIDYALAYAM, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 517502 5. UNIVERSITY STANDING COMMITTEE FOR AFFILIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY PRAKASAM ROAD SRI PADMAVATI MAHILA VISWAVIDYALAYAM, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 517502 6. SRI BHUPATHI NAIDU MADHALA, (IMPLEADED ALSO IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY) REGISTRAR SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY PRAKASAM ROAD SRI PADMAVATI MAHILA VISWAVIDYALAYAM, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 517502 7. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY 21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEAR BAL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110 002 ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order No. C- 111(4)/KMRLC/Affiliation/2025-26 dated 07-11-2025 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the impugned rejection order and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent University to grant affiliation for the academic year 2025-26 in accordance with BCI Approval dated 21-09-2024 and further direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to participate in APLAWCET-2025 counselling and process admissions for AY 2025-26 and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of case. 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 pleased to suspend the impugned 3 rejection order vide No. C-111(4)/KMRLC/Affiliation/2025-26 dated 07-11-2025 issued by the 3^^ Respondent, Sri Venkateswara University, and grant affiliation forthwith the Petitioner institution so as to enable the Petitioner institution to participate in APLAWCET- 2025 counselling and admit students for the academic year 2025-26, pending Writ Petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. G VENKATA REDDY 3. K RADHIKA 4. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL 5. RAMESH BABU TALLURI SC For S.V.UNIVERSITY,TIRUPATI The Court made the following: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.32408 of 2025 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.3 in issuing the order No.C- 111(4)/KMRLC/Affiliation/2025-26, dated 07.11.2025 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is a duly established Law College and Respondent No. 2-A.P. State Council for Higher Education (APSCHE) had issued NOC. For the academic year 2024-25, Respondent No.3-University conducted physical inspection and issued a temporary affiliation on 30.12.2023 for that academic year. While so, the Petitioner-College was denied from participating in A.P.LAWCET-2025 counselling process for admission for the academic year 2025-26 on the ground of non-grant of digital affiliation by the Respondent-University. 3. Questioning the same, Petitioner filed W.P.No.24432 of 2025 and an interim order was passed permitting the Petitioner to participate in the counselling process on 11.09.2025. In this regard, W.A.No.1120 of 2025 was filed by the University, which was disposed of by order dated 28.10.2025, setting aside the interim order and 5 further directing the University to conduct the inspection and pass appropriate orders thereon. Pursuant to orders of this Court in W.A.No.1120 of 2025, the Respondent-University inspected the Petitioner premises and resolved not to recommend granting affiliation due to (04) deficiencies and principal among them is the non-compliance of BCI norms for the academic year 2025-26. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. As regards deficiency No.1 that, no separate demarcated building for Law College is concerned, it is stated that the Petitioner has 5 acres of land and Law College requires 2 acres while B.Ed. College requires 2 acres. It is further stated that separate demarcated buildings and boundaries exist. 4. As regards deficiency No.2, it is stated that G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 07.07.2001 applies only to Degree Colleges and the same has no relevance vis-a-vis Law Colleges which are governed by Rules of Legal Education, 2008. As regards deficiency No.3 that Principal does not have 15 years of teaching experience, it is stated that the same Principal was accepted and approved by the University during their inspection for the academic year 2024-25 and was also accepted by the Bar Council of India during the virtual inspection held on 22.07.2024, therefore, the objection cannot be sustained. As 6 regards deficiency No.4 that the Aadhaar details not submitted for two faculty members, it is stated that the Aadhaar verification can be carried out only through APCFSS portal and as the University failed to provide login credentials, the Aadhaar details could not be uploaded and the Petitioner cannot be penalized for the University‟s action. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent-University, it is stated that the land in Sy.Nos.59/4, 59/5, 59/6, 59/10, 59/11, 59/12, 59/13, 59/3, 60/4, 60/5, 60/6 and 60/14 in Veppagunta Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District was shown for obtaining affiliation for two separate educational institutions, namely KMR College of Education and KMR Law College and it is conclusively established by the Land Use Certificate dated 11.02.2010 issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, which certifies that the total extent of land is Ac.2.50 cents and the same was purchased by Sri K.Thirumala Prasad for establishment of Swathi Educational Society for KMR College of Education. It is also stated that the University Inspection Committee in its report dated 04.11.2025 has found that no separate demarcated building exclusively for Law College as required under BCI guidelines was provided. It is further stated that the claim of the Petitioner- College that it has 5 acres of land is a blatant misrepresentation. It is 7 further stated that the Petitioner-College is claiming that it has 5 acres of land with 2 acres for Law College and 2 acres for B.Ed. College with separate demarcated buildings and boundaries, but has not produced any additional land documents, sale deeds, title deeds, pattadar passbooks, revenue records, etc., to substantiate the claim. It is further stated that the verification conducted by the University authorities reveals that the building which was earlier sanctioned for KMR College of Education (Ground +2 floors) has now been proposed for KMR Law College without obtaining any prior permission from the University, APSCHE, or the Bar Council of India. 6. Reliance was also placed on G.O.Ms.No.58, Higher Education (CE.II) Department, dated 07.07.2001 and the University Regulations, which mandate the appointment of teaching staff only after constitution of a Five Members Selection Committee in which one nominee shall be from the concerned University. The Selection Committee shall interview the candidates and recommend suitable candidates for appointment based on merit, qualifications and experience. It is stated that the Petitioner had violated the said G.O. and without constituting the mandatory Selection Committee and without University nominee, participating in the selection process had engaged the staff. It is stated that the Principal of the College does 8 not possess a minimum qualification of 15 years of teaching experience in Law College as provided under Rule 16(iv) of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008. As regards the submission of Aadhaar cards of two faculty members, it is stated that it was the responsibility of the Management to ensure that all faculty members‟ Aadhaar details are complete and available for verification and Petitioner cannot shift the burden to the University. It is also stated that the APCFSS portal system was established to prevent faculty members from claiming appointments in multiple institutions simultaneously and to ensure transparency in the verification process and in that regard Aadhaar details are essential and therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. In the reply affidavit filed by the Petitioner, it is stated that the Petitioner-College owns land admeasuring Ac.3.68 cents including Ac.1.18 cents purchased under registered sale deed dated 22.07.2011, in addition, holds land admeasuring Ac.1.43 cents under a lease deed dated 22.03.2012 for a period of 20 years. Thus, it is stated that the total extent of land available for the Petitioner-College is Ac.5.11 cents. It is further stated that Ac.2.16 cents is clearly demarcated and earmarked for KMR Law College, Ac.2.00 cents is earmarked for B.Ed. College, and the remaining land is kept vacant. It 9 is also stated that separate building blocks, functional areas and internal demarcations exist for each institution, and the same was accepted during the physical inspection for the Academic Year 2024- 25 and also in the virtual inspection conducted by the Bar Council of India on 22.07.2024. It is further stated that these facts are apparent by the inspection report of the inspection committee dated 05.11.2025. 8. Learned senior counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy would submit that there is no requirement of separate exclusive building for running a Law College and that the same is not mandated under Rules of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008. It is stated that the Petitioner-College is located in an extent of Ac.5.11 cents out of which Ac.3.68 cents is owned by the Petitioner-College under sale deed dated 22.07.2021 and an extent of Ac.1.43 cents is under registered lease deed dated 22.03.2012. It is also submitted that there is no bar for running a multidisciplinary college under the Rules. It is contended that G.O.Ms.No.58 has no application to Law Colleges and that the appointment of Principal is in consonance to the Rules and that the Aadhaar details as required would be uploaded after the login credentials are provided. Sri Ramesh Babu Talluri, submitted that necessary infrastructure is found wanting in the College and 10 contended that a separate building and land is a necessity since the spaces are used for other purposes after the inspection and affiliation. 9. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Ramesh Babu Talluri, Standing Counsel for the Unviersity. 10. The objections raised in the impugned proceedings against the Petitioner-Law College are as under: Deficiencies pointed out by the UIC as per University/BCI Guidelines Recommendations 1. There is no separate demarked land building for Law College. (as per the BCI Law Guidelines – Land and building should have properly demarcated exclusively for Law College). 2. University Procedure is not followed in the Staff Recruitment (vide reference 1st cited, in Staff selection there must be formed Five Men Selection Committee in that one Nominee of the Concerned University is must). 3. Principal is not having 15 years of Teaching Experience in Law College. (as per the BCI Law Guidelines - Principal should have Minimum 15 years of Teaching Experience in Law College). 4. 4. Two Faculty Members have not submitted their Aadhaar cards to check their working status in the same Due to non-compliance with BCI norms, affiliation cannot be given for the academic year 2025-26. 11 College. (As per the provision given in the APCFSS Affiliation web portal one can be check with Aadhaar whether working in other College or not) 11. The substantial point of dispute in the case revolves around objections pointed out in Sl.No.1 in the above tabulated statement i.e. requirement of a separate demarcated land and building for Law College. The BCI Regulations for Establishment of Law Colleges were framed under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and were named as Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (for short „the Rules). Rule 16 thereof specifies conditions for a University to affiliate a Centre of Legal Education and sub-rule 16(ii) is relevant for this case. As per this Rule 16(ii), the institution should have in its name adequate land and buildings either on lease or freehold to provide a Centre of Legal Education building and sufficient floor space area is devoted in entirety for a Centre of Legal Education based on size of students population, faculty requirement and for infrastructure facilities. 12. Rule 16(ii) of the Rules reads as under: 16. Conditions for a University to affiliate a Centre of Legal Education (ii) the institution has in its name either in freehold or leasehold, adequate land and buildings, to provide for Centre of Legal 12 Education building, library, halls of residences separately for male and female and sports complex both indoor and outdoor, so that it can effectively run professional law courses provided that in case of leasehold the lease is not less than ten years, Provided that sufficient and adequate floor space area specially and completely devoted for a Centre of Legal Education, based on the size of its student population, faculty requirement, adequate space required for infrastructure facilities can be considered sufficient accommodation for the purpose in a multi- faculty building on land possessed by the Management of a Society/ Trust running multi-faculty institutions. 13. The above Rule does not specifically contemplate a separate building as mentioned in the impugned letter. What all required under the above Rule is that the Law College should have exclusive, sufficient and adequate floor space based on student strength so as to effectively run the professional law courses even in a multi faculty building on land possessed by management running multi faculty institutions. 14. Apart from the above mentioned Rule, Schedule III of the Rules prescribes minimum infrastructure facilities required in a Centre of Legal Education. The Rules 3 and 4 thereof would be relevant for the purpose of this case. 3. Freehold or Leasehold Property: Each Centre of Legal Education providing education in law either in the Department of 13 law of a University or its constituent or affiliated college must have either on freehold or on long leasehold land adequate to provide academic buildings, library, indoor and outdoor sports facilities, halls of residences for male and female students separately, as the case may be, in the name of the Centre of Legal Education or organization running the Centre of Legal Education. However, lease in the name of the Centre of Legal Education shall be for a period of not less than ten years. What is the adequate space for the said purpose shall be decided by the respective authority of the University under its affiliation regulation and as guided by the UGC. Provided that sufficient land and adequate floor space area completely and exclusively devoted for a Centre of Legal Education, based on the size of its student population, faculty requirement infrastructure facilities, Library space requirement, indoor and outdoor games facilities and other requirements can be considered sufficient accommodation in compliance with this clause, for the purpose in a multi-faculty Institution on land possessed by the Management of a Society/ Trust/ Non Profit Company running multi-faculty institutions in a metropolitan or in a class 1 city. 15. The proviso to Rule 3 of Schedule III is a reiteration of Rule 16(ii) of the main Rules and both the Rules in tandem speak of adequacy of floor space area devoted for a Centre of Legal Education in a multi-faculty institution on land possessed by the Management of a Society. The Rules only speak of adequacy, but not exclusivity as is urged by the University. The words “exclusive or separate building” is 14 consciously not referred to in the Rules and this Court is not inclined to read exclusivity into the Rules as that would amount to legislation. 16. The deficiency No.2 is that the Petitioner-College has not followed the University procedure in staff recruitment. Reliance for the said deficiency is G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 07.07.2001, which is applicable for „teaching staff in the Private Degree/Junior Colleges whether receiving aid from Government or not‟. 17. The G.O. is ex-facie is not applicable to recruitment of staff in a professional Law College. Therefore, deficiency No.2 cannot be sustained. 18. As regards deficiency No.3 with regard to 15 years experience for appointment of a Principal to a Law College; this is not a condition prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. Rule 16(iv), which has been referred to in the counter affidavit reads as under: 16. Conditions for a University to affiliate a Centre of Legal Education: (iv) there is the separate Centres of Legal Education for the study of law under a separate Principal who should be qualified in Law to be a Professor of Law as stipulated under UGC and Bar Council of India rules, 15 19. Apart from this, the Schedule III of the Rules refers to the Principal in Minimum infrastructure facilities required in a Centre of Legal Education and Rule 16 thereunder only mandates a whole time Principal/Dean for the College. The Rule 16 of Schedule III Reads as under: 16 Whole time Principal/ Head/Dean: There shall be a Principal for each constituent or affiliated Centre of Legal Education of a University and a Dean for the University Department, who shall have minimum prescribed qualification in law as prescribed by the UGC for respective position like Principal of a Centre of Legal Education or a Professor of Law to hold Deanship, as the case may be. 20. Neither of the Rules mandate, 15 years of teaching experience to be appointed as Principal of Law College. Therefore, this objection cannot be sustained. 21. As regards deficiency No.4 of the impugned order, the same is trivial in nature, the University can re-examine the same in the light of the explanation given by the Petitioner. 18. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The 3rd Respondent-University is directed to re-consider affiliation to the Petitioner-College forthwith taking note of the adequacy of space and other requirements as per Rules of Legal Education, 2008. No order as to costs. 16 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date:20.02.2026 KLP