| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1104
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Writ Petition No. 17385 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA |
| Parties : Venkateswara Institute of Technology, Rep. By Its Principal, Dr. T. Vishnu Vardhan Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary To Government, Guntur & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: G. Sekhar Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondent: Government Pleader for Higher Education. |
| Date of Judgment : 03-07-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Subject
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- None
2. Catch Words:
- Approval
- Nomenclature
- Counselling
- Admission
- Writ Petition
3. Summary:
The petitioner, a private unaided technical institution, obtained AICTE approval on 04.05.2026 for a Diploma programme in Artificial Intelligence with 120 seats. The State’s Skills Development and Training Department subsequently granted permission to commence the course. However, the affiliating university (3rd respondent) issued a revised nomenclature, listing the course as “Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)-CAI” and did not reflect the AICTE‑approved intake, thereby obstructing the petitioner’s participation in the counselling process. The petitioner contended that this discrepancy violated the AICTE approval and the State’s permission. The Court held that the petitioner could not be deprived of the AICTE and Government approvals due to a naming difference and directed the respondents to recognize the course as “Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)” with the approved 120 seats for counselling and admissions. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Heard Sri G.Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not recognizing the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’) Extension of Approval dated 04.05.2026 granted by the AICTE to the petitioner for the Diploma programme in Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence) course with intake of 120 seats.
3. The petitioner institution is a private unaided technical institution established to impart Education in Technical courses. It is submitted that the petitioner sought approval to conduct Diploma courses for the academic year 2026-2027. Accordingly, the petitioner applied to the competent authority the AICTE. The AICTE vide proceedings dated 04.05.2026, granted approval for conducting the following Diploma programme courses:
Level
| Program
| Course
| Affiliating Body (University/Body)
| Diploma
| Engineering and Technology
| Artificial intelligence
| State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh
| Diploma
| Engineering and Technology
| Computer Engineering
| State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh
| Diploma
| Engineering and Technology
| Electrical and Electronics Engineering
| State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh
| Diploma
| Engineering and Technology
| Electronics & Communication Engineering
| State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh
|
4. After obtaining the said approval, the petitioner approached the Skills Development and Training (TE.A1) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh seeking permission for the new Diploma course i.e., Artificial Intelligence. Pursuant to the said application, an inspection was conducted and after physical verification of the relevant documents and the facilities provided by the petitioner institution for the academic year 2026-2027, a report was submitted by the 2nd respondent along with recommendations for starting the new Diploma course which includes Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence). Basing on the said report, the Secretary to Government, Skills Development and Training (TE.A1) Department, vide proceedings dated 20.05.2026, accorded permission to the 2nd respondent for commencing the new Diploma courses by the petitioner.
5. It is contended that the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 11.12.2025, issued revised nomenclature for different courses wherein the subject course of Artificial Intelligence was given as “Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)-CAI”. Thereafter, the Secretary to Government, Skills Development and Training (TE.A1) Department, vide proceedings dated 20.05.2026, accorded permission to the 2nd respondent for commencing the new Diploma courses by the petitioner including the course “Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)”. Vide proceedings dated 18.06.2026, the 3rd respondent granted renewal of affiliation to the petitioner's college in respect of the following three Diploma courses:
Sl.No.
| Course Name
| Course Code
| Affiliated Intake 2026-27
| 1
| Computer Science and Engineering
| CSE
| 90
| 2
| Electrical & Electronics Engineering
| EE
| 30
| 3
| Electronics & Communication Engineering
| EC
| 60
|
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said proceedings of the 3rd respondent are contrary to its own proceedings dated 11.12.2025, and the proceedings of the AICTE as well as the proceedings of the Skills Development and Training (TE.A1) Department, dated 20.05.2026.
7. It is contended that unless the 3rd respondent changes the nomenclature of the subject course from "Artificial Intelligence" to "Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)" with an intake of 120 students, as approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the AICTE, the petitioner will not be able to admit students during the ensuing counselling, which is scheduled today and which has been extended till 04.07.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to consider "Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)" as one of the approved courses, as the same has been approved by the AICTE, however, with a different nomenclature as “Artificial Intelligence” and permitted by the Skills Development and Training Department with an intake of 120 seats. Thus, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to include the programme "Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)".
8. A perusal of the approvals granted by the AICTE in favour of the petitioner, and the proceedings of the Principal Secretary, Skills Development and Training (TE.A1) Department, and the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 11.12.2025 reflects that the nomenclature to the course “Artificial Intelligence” was given as "Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)-CAI".
9. In view of the above, as the petitioner was granted approval/permission for commencement of “Artificial Intelligence”, by both the AICTE and the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 3rd respondent while issuing the impugned proceedings ought to have shown the said course also as one of the permitted course. On the premise of difference in the nomenclature, the petitioner cannot be deprived of approval granted by AICTE and the Government for commencement of the course “Artificial Intelligence”. In the light of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to include the course "Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)" in the counselling and permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling process and admit students to the course "Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)". The respondents are further directed to issue consequential proceedings by reflecting the course as "Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)" with an intake of 120 students, as approved by the AICTE, thereby enabling the petitioner institution to take admissions to the course "Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)".
10. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
|
| |
