'Locality' Under Education Act Not District, State Entitled To Treat Different Localities In A District Independently: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that district cannot be treated as a locality under Section 20(3) of the Telangana Education Act mandating permission needed by educational institutions for establishment, noting that lawmakers did not use the word 'District' and had instead used the word 'locality'.The court thus said that while locality is not defined, however generally the state is entitled...
The Telangana High Court has held that district cannot be treated as a locality under Section 20(3) of the Telangana Education Act mandating permission needed by educational institutions for establishment, noting that lawmakers did not use the word 'District' and had instead used the word 'locality'.
The court thus said that while locality is not defined, however generally the state is entitled to treat different localities of a particular district as independent 'locality'.
Section 20 pertains to Permission for establishment of educational institutions wherein sub-section (3) lists certain requirements which an institution must satisfy before permission is granted.
Section 20(3)(a)(ii) states "any educational agency applying for permission before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority concerned that there is need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality".
The court passed the order while hearing a group of colleges in Medchal-Malkajgiri district, who claimed discrimination by the State in not increasing seat intake despite approvals, while request for seat intake by other colleges in the district had been granted.
A division of the then Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara in its order said:
"A minute reading of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Education Act makes it clear that in the event an application is preferred for permission under sub-section (2), before a decision is being taken to grant permission, the authority needs to satisfy itself regarding need for providing educational facilities to the people 'in the locality'. The lawmakers did not use the word 'District' and instead used the word people in the 'locality'. In the Education Act, the word 'locality' has not been defined. Thus, in common parlance, it is open to the State Government to treat each one of different localities of a particular district as independent 'locality'. In the instant case, they have done so and treated different localities as separate locality".
The bench noted that while interpreting Section 20 the Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar v. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (2019) upheld its constitutionality and made it clear in that survey is to be conducted to identify the educational needs of the 'locality'.
It observed that the appellant's argument was based on discrimination and to establish they had categorically pleaded in the writ affidavit and had filed a statement to show the hostile discrimination and step-motherly treatment meted out to them.
It said,
“If we treat the Mechal-Malkajgiri District as a 'locality', perhaps the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants will gather strength but as discussed above, we are unable to treat a 'district' as a 'locality' in view of clear language employed in Section 20 of the Education Act and intention of lawmakers behind it.”
The court said that as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, comparison can be made between similarly situated institutions of same locality. It said that though Kandlakoya locality where all the appellants are located, falls within the Medchal-Malkajgiri District, but the district is a large district consisting of various localities.
It said, “Thus, the exercise undertaken by the State locality wise is in consonance with the scheme and object of Section 20 of the Education Act. The appellants cannot claim parity with an institution existing in a difference locality for the simple reason that the need of the locality has to be seen locality wise and not district wise...As discussed above, we find no illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge which warrants interference in this intra-Court appeal”.
The appellants claimed that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) approved the demand of intake of seats in the institutions. The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) also gave NOC on 21.03.2024.
Despite these approvals, since the request of additional intake of seats was rejected by the State, they moved writ petition which was dismissed by single judge.
They said that they were not questioning Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act but were highlighting that State has not prepared any policy for the purpose of taking a decision under Section 20. They further argued that while the appellants request for additional seats in Computer Science Engineering (CSE) and Information Technology (IT) has been rejected however in the same District of Medchal-Malkajgiri, such increase of seats was permitted for other collages.
Thus the appellants argued that they were facing step-motherly treatment since other institutions within the district was granted the same.
However on humanitarian grounds the Court directed that those students who were admitted pursuant to interim order of the Court shall be permitted to complete their courses and order of Single Judge will not come in their way in any manner. The remaining part of the order of the Single Judge was upheld.
The appeals were disposed of.
WRIT APPEAL Nos.572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 601 and 602 of 2025