St. Marys Integrated Campus Hyderabad, v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.14451 of 2014 BETWEEN St. Mary's Integrated Campus, Hyderabad and others. ... PETITIONERS AND Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Rep. by its Registrar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. SRI CHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondents: MR. A. ABHISHEK REDDY The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard.

2. The admission of petitioners 2 to 9 in the B.Tech II year course was not approved by the Convenor under impugned proceedings dated

23.08.2012 only on the ground that they belong to other State.

3. The non-approval of admission on the aforesaid ground was held to be not sustainable by the order of this Court in WP.No.33341 of 2014 and batch dated 07.11.2014. Following the order in W.P.No.33341 of 2014 and batch dated 07.11.2014, this writ petition is also disposed of. Operative portion whereof, is as follows:

"In view of the same, these writ petitions are allowed in terms of W.P.No.32797 of 2014 and batch, dated 31.10.2014, which are as follows: "The impugned proceedings so far as they relate to rejection of candidature of students admitted by the petitioners respectively only on the ground that they belong to other states shall stand set aside subject to the condition that the admitted students are eligible for admission and qualified for that. The Convenor shall, therefore, reexamine the matter and pass appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the light of directions of this Court, referred to above." Consequently, if the results of the petitioners are not announced for the II year B.Tech course, the same shall be announced and the respondent shall take further consequential steps. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 26, 2015 DSK