Telangana: College Seeks Inclusion in ICET Admissions

Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the refusal of the commissioner of technical education and other competent authorities to permit admissions for MBA and MCA courses for the academic year 2025–26 at Haindavi Degree and PG College, Barkatpura. The judge is dealing with a writ plea filed by Sneha Educational Society, contending that despite approval and sanction from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), the respondents failed to issue the necessary orders enabling the petitioner institution to conduct admissions in regular/offline mode for the upcoming academic year. The petitioners would further allege that the institution was arbitrarily excluded from the Telangana Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (ICET) counselling process for 2025–26, thereby preventing students from securing seats in MBA and MCA programmes. It was argued that the State’s action is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Constitution. The petitioners would also claim that such exclusion is in gross violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court regarding recognition and admissions in higher educational institutions. The petitioners sought directions declaring the inaction of the respondents illegal and a consequential order directing the authorities to treat the petitioner institution as a validly permitted, affiliated, and approved college from the academic year 2025–26. They also sought inclusion of the institution in the TGICET counselling process and permission to admit students for MBA and MCA courses. The government pleader sought time to obtain instructions in the matter.

2. HC upholds continuing caste inquiry

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a craft teacher of an Ashrama High School challenging the initiation of a fresh inquiry into his Scheduled Tribe (ST) social status, ruling that authorities were acting within their jurisdiction to ensure the integrity of the reservation system. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Nallabothula Chenna Rao, who was appointed as a craft teacher in 1994. The petitioner serving under the Ashrama High School, Kottapally, claimed that he belonged to the Valmiki community and was issued an ST certificate in 1989 by a competent authority. He argued that a similar inquiry was conducted in 2022, during which he produced all relevant documents, and the case was closed by confirming his social status. Despite this, in December 2024, the district collector of Bhadradri-Kothagudem directed the deputy director of tribal welfare to initiate another inquiry based on a complaint received from an outsider. Challenging these proceedings, the petitioner contended that repeated inquiries were arbitrary, violative of the Constitution and contrary to the issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules. He further alleged that the fresh proceedings, initiated after three decades of unblemished service, were a form of harassment and could lead to disciplinary action against him. The State, however, denied that any prior inquiry conclusively confirmed his caste status. It was submitted that the 2022 proceedings were limited to issuing notices seeking documents and no final determination was made. The government pleader emphasised that the December 2024 proceedings merely referred the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC). The judge rejected the petitioner’s claim that a prior inquiry validated his certificate, clarifying that notices to furnish documents cannot be treated as a completed inquiry. The judge further held that the State retains inherent power to verify the genuineness of caste certificates at any point of time, particularly in cases where fraudulent claims may deprive genuine beneficiaries of constitutional protections. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling, the judge reiterated that there is no limitation period for such verifications.

3. HC halts disputed construction in Warangal

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC) to halt further construction on disputed land at Shyampet village. The judge is hearing a writ plea filed by Neerati Venugopal, challenging the building permit issued in July 2022 and the consequential approval for commencement of work in favour of Vankudoth Vijay Nayak for construction on land. The petitioner would contend that the approvals were obtained by suppressing facts and misrepresenting records. He contended ownership and possession over a larger extent of land purchased under a registered sale deed and relied on a decree in a civil suit granting him a perpetual injunction, thereby confirming his title. The petitioner would allege that despite this, private respondent, who purchased from the judgment debtors in the earlier suit, managed to secure the disputed approvals. It was further submitted that the petitioner made a representation in May seeking the stoppage of the alleged illegal construction and cancellation of the permits, but no action was taken by the municipal authorities. Standing Counsel for GWMC submitted that permission was granted to the private respondent based on a prima facie title supported by registered documents, but sought time to obtain instructions. After hearing both sides, the judge observed that the earlier civil decree protected the rights of the petitioner and that a subsequent purchaser could not claim a better title than the judgment debtors. Noting the potential for irreparable prejudice, the judge directed GWMC to ensure no further construction is undertaken under the disputed permit and approval until the petitioner’s complaint is considered. The matter is posted to October 07, 2025, for further hearing.

4. FIR on Ayurvedic doctor quashed

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court quashed an FIR against an Ayurvedic practitioner accused of illegally practicing allopathic medicine. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by H. Lokesh. The petitioner questioned criminal proceedings alleging that he administered IV fluids, injections and prescribed allopathic drugs in violation of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, the National Medical Commission Act and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to cheating and impersonation. The petitioner contended that he is a BAMS practitioner with valid registration under the Telangana Board of Indian Medicine and that his practice is protected by the Indian Medicine Central Council Act. He further argued that the Telangana Medical Council had no authority to directly lodge a police complaint and that under the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, only the Commissioner of AYUSH could take action. The Medical Council opposed and alleged that the petitioner was illegally prescribing allopathy. The judge on examining Rule 8 of the 2013 Rules, held that complaints against non-allopathic practitioners allegedly practicing modern medicine must be referred to the Commissioner of AYUSH and that the Council could not directly lodge a police report. The judge further found that the FIR lacked particulars to sustain the charges of cheating or impersonation. Accordingly, the judge quashed the FIR, with liberty to the Medical Council to proceed afresh in accordance with law.