A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court deferred its decision on a writ plea challenging the University Grants Commission (UGC) Institutions Deemed to be Universities Regulations, 2023, along with previous regulations from 2019, 2016, and 2010. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a plea filed by the state and the commissioner of technical and collegiate education, Hyderabad. The petitioners contend that the UGC regulations encroach upon the jurisdiction of state governments in granting university status, particularly Deemed University status, and permit the establishment of off-campus centres without the state’s consent. The petitioners contend that these regulations violate the rights of the Telangana government under the Telangana Education Act and the Telangana Universities Act. The petitioners also argued that the process of granting Deemed University status and allowing off-campus centres without considering the state’s educational framework and prior approval contradicts the provisions of the UGC Act. Further, the state argued that these regulations are unconstitutional as they conflict with Entry 32 of the State List (List II) in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which grants states the power to legislate on universities other than those established by Parliament. The petitioners sought to declare the UGC regulations ultra vires and unconstitutional, praying for their annulment and the nullification of any approvals granted under them for Deemed University status or off-campus centres in Telangana. The panel ordered notices to Symbiosis International (Deemed) University, Malla Reddy Vishwavidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), and other universities and directed the UGC to file its response. The matter was posted for further hearing after two weeks.Plea against TG Lawcet dismissedJustice K. Lakshman of Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the TG Lawcet 2025 notification regarding the permission for degree-qualified candidates to apply for the 5-year integrated LLB programme. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Shaik Abdul Majeeb, a student, contending that the notification was unconstitutional and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It is the case of the petitioner that TG Lawcet 2025 notification invites applications for admission into three-year and five-year LLB courses for the academic year 2025-26 and as per the eligibility criteria, candidates applying for the five-year LLB course must have completed a two-year Intermediate Examination (10+2 pattern) or an equivalent examination with a minimum aggregate of 45 per cent marks for the General category. However, the notification does not impose an upper age limit for applicants in either the three-year or five-year LLB courses, allowing candidates of any age to apply. The petitioner argued that the absence of an upper age limit could impact the quality and dynamics of legal education. It was contended that candidates who have already completed a degree would have an unfair advantage, as they have prior experience with competitive exams, making it easier for them to secure seats over fresh higher secondary graduates. Additionally, it was argued that the provision permitting degree-qualified candidates to enroll in the five-year LLB programme undermines the intent of the course, which is traditionally designed for students entering legal education directly after their 10+2 studies. The judge found no merit in the arguments of the petitioner and dismissed the writ plea.HC to hear student expelled by EfluThe Telangana High Court will hear a writ plea filed by a PhD student challenging the dismissal of his appeal against expulsion by English and Foreign Languages University (Eflu). Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy was dealing with a writ plea filed by Meghdeep Saha, challenging his removal from the university rolls and the denial of re-admission. Eflu had received complaints from both male and female students against the petitioner alleging sexual harassment. The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in two separate writ pleas, challenging his suspension and the subsequent recommendation of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to expel him in view of alleged sexual harassment charges. In the first writ plea, the court set aside his suspension and directed the university to conduct a fresh inquiry strictly in line with the UGC Regulations, 2015. In the second writ plea, the court directed the university’s appellate authority to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal against his expulsion. The petitioner now contends that despite the court’s earlier orders, the university proceeded to dismiss his appeal without due consideration, making his expulsion final. The petitioner argued that the university failed to follow due process and violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution. The petitioner sought reinstatement to the PhD programme.Rangareddy collector summoned in contempt case Justice C.V. Bhasker Reddy of the Telangana High Court issued a Form-1 notice for contempt of court against Dr S. Harish, the district collector of Ranga Reddy, and D. Srinivas Reddy, tahsildar, Shamshabad, for failing to comply with the order of the court. The contempt plea was filed by Depally Narayana challenging the actions of the Special Tribunal, Rangareddy district, for failing to comply with a judicial order to reconsider a land dispute case. The judge previously quashed an earlier decision and mandated a fresh hearing. The case pertains to a petition filed by an octogenarian seeking correction of revenue records for the land in Nanajipur Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. The Special Tribunal for revenue rejected her request on February 2, 2021, which the petitioner contended was arbitrary. During the initial hearing, the judge found that the Special Tribunal disposed of the case without affording an opportunity for a hearing. The court, therefore, quashed the decision of tribunal and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, directing officials to provide all parties with a fair hearing and dispose of the matter within three months. Taking a serious view of the non-compliance, the judge sought an explanation from the respondents for their failure to act in accordance with judicial orders.
Source link
