Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1421 (AP)

Burgula Rajendra Kumar v. Government of Telangana

2014-11-25

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2014
Order C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. The petitioners, who are studying B Tech, III year in respondent No. 3-College, have filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the action of the said respondent in not promoting them to IV year on the ground that they did not pass all I year subjects. 2. The petitioners have not disputed that respondent No. 3 is an autonomous institution recognised as such by respondent No. 2- University from the academic year 2011-12. However, it is the case of the petitioners that while as per the Regulations of respondent No. 2, they qualify for being promoted to final year, as per the academic Regulations of respondent No. 3, they are not eligible for such promotion in view of variation between the academic Regulations of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. Sri Venkat Reddy Thipparthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that as per the guidelines framed by respondent No. 2 for autonomous colleges, respondent No. 3 has to submit academic Regulations to the University for approval and that till such approval is made, respondent No. 3 cannot enforce its own academic Regulations. 4. Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, submitted that his client has indeed submitted its academic Regulations to respondent No. 2 and that as the said respondent has not raised any objection to the academic Regulations, they are deemed to have been approved. Alternatively, he has submitted that in para-3 of the proceedings, dated 08.08.2011, of respondent No. 2, whereunder it has granted autonomous status to respondent No. 3, it is clearly stated that the students admitted from the academic year 2011-12 will be governed by the academic Regulations of respondent No. 3 and the students who are already studying II, III and final year of B. Tech., and the students of M. Tech. courses will however by governed by respondent No? 5. These submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 have been supported by Sri A. Abhishek Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2. In addition, Sri A. Abhishek Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, submitted that the guidelines for autonomous colleges relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are applicable with effect from the academic year 2012-13 and that the autonomous status having been conferred to respondent No. 3 from the academic year 2011-12, the same have no application to it. 6. In addition, Sri A. Abhishek Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, submitted that the guidelines for autonomous colleges relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are applicable with effect from the academic year 2012-13 and that the autonomous status having been conferred to respondent No. 3 from the academic year 2011-12, the same have no application to it. 6. Clause-3 of the proceedings, dated 08.08.2011, of respondent No. 2, whereunder it has conferred autonomous status to respondent No. 3 reads as under: "Under the circumstances as stated above, the Vice-Chancellor is pleased to Grant Autonomous Status to "Vardhaman College of Engineering, Kacharam Vil, Nanajipur Post, Shamshabad (M), Ranga Reddy Dist" sponsored by "Vardhaman Educational Society, Kacharam (V), Nanajipur Post, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy Dist" to offer UG/PG Degree Courses in the following disciplines with the intake shown against each for 3 years from the academic Year 2011-12 to 2013-14. The Autonomous Status is conferred for batches starting from the Academic Year 2011-12 i.e., B. Tech 1/4 and M. Tech 1/2; however all senior batches of B. Tech 2/4, 3/4, 4/4 and M. Tech 2/2 will be governed by JNTUH Academic Regulations. The institution is required to adopt semester system from B. Tech 1st year onwards." 7. The above re-produced Clause lends support to the submissions of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that in respect of the students who have joined the courses from the academic year 2011-12, the academic Regulations of respondent No. 3 will apply, while in respect of the students who are already studying by that time, the academic Regulations of respondent No. 2 will apply. Admittedly, the petitioners have joined respondent No. 3 in the academic year 2011-12. Therefore, the academic Regulations of respondent No. 3 will apply to them. Further, as submitted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the guidelines for autonomous colleges on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners were issued by respondent No. 2 with effect from the academic year 2012-13. 8. From the above noted facts, it is clear that the petitioners are governed by the academic Regulations of respondent No. 3 which are permitted to be in force for the students who have joined the courses from the academic year 2011-12. 9. 8. From the above noted facts, it is clear that the petitioners are governed by the academic Regulations of respondent No. 3 which are permitted to be in force for the students who have joined the courses from the academic year 2011-12. 9. Respondent No. 3 has filed the backlog statement of each of the petitioners in I year which is to the following effect: “ I Semester II semester Petitioner No. 1 - 01 Petitioner No. 2 01 - Petitioner No. 3 02 01 Petitioner No. 4 01 - Petitioner No. 5 03 01 Petitioner No. 6 - 01 Petitioner No. 7 01 -” 10. The statement further shows that in spite of multiple attempts made by the petitioners to clear the backlogs which range between three to six times, they could not clear the backlogs of I year B. Tech. In my opinion, no exception can be taken to the Regulations made by respondent No. 3 to the effect that unless the students of III year clear all I year subjects, they cannot be promoted to IV year. B. Tech., course being a highly professional course, reasonable standards are expected of the students studying such course as the future of the society depends upon their high professional efficiency and sound knowledge in the subjects. The action of respondent No. 3 in detaining the petitioners cannot therefore be termed as either arbitrary or illegal. 11. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 12. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 22.09.2014, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P. No. 35526 of 2014 and W.V.M.P. No. 3228 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.