132571 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 20961 OF 2026 Between: Bandari Ashwini, D/o Bandari Laxman, aged 18 years, Occupation Student, R/o House No.6-55/1, Badampally, Jannaram Mandal, Mancherail District, Telangana-504 205 ...PETITIONER AND '1 Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, . The State of Education Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Telangana Council of Higher Education, Rep. by its Secretary, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-S00 028. 3. The Convenor, TG ECEI-2026 Admissions, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-SO0 028 ...RESPONDENTS

the Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the Respondents, more particularly the 3rd Respondent in erroneously/wrongly considering the Petitioner, under 'Scheduled 'Scheduled Caste Group-lllCaste Group-1 OU Local Category', instead of (NETHAKANI-22 (SC) OU Local Category' to which the petitioner belongs, in the TG ECET Admissions 2026, during certificate verification and web counselling process, despite production of original caste certificate bearing No. CND022635783035, dated 16.06.2026, issued by the competent authority and the provisional allotment of seat in First phase in civir Engineering erroneousry under schedured caste_l petitioner,s category' instead of schedured caste-, category, ignoring the category as Schedured caste category-,r as mentioned and recorded in the TG E.ET-2026 Registration Form, Hall Ticket and Rank Card as illegal, highhanded, arbitrary, unjust, devoid of rawfur reasons against the doctrine of regitimate expectation and unconstitutionar, being viorative of Articres 14 and 21 0f the constitution of rndia, by holding that the petitioner berong to schedured caste Group-* oU Locar category and consequenfly direct the 3rd Respondent, to consider the petitioner under Scheduled caste Group-il ou Locar category in ailotment of seat in TG ECET Admissions-2026 web counsering stricry as per the options exercised by the petitioner and in accordance with the petitioner,s rank in the merit rist in TG ECET Admissions-2026

l.A. NO:1 oF 2026 Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 3rd Respondent to reserve one seat in schedured caste Group-, ou Locar category in TG ECET Admissions-2026, in the corege to which the petitioner ought to have been a,otted in phase-r counsering, stricry in accordance with the option exercised and the rank of the petitioner in the merit rist, pending disposar of the writ Petition. l.A. NO:2 oF 2026 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent, to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 29.06.2026, through a reasoned and speaking order, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counset for the petitioner: SRI GOURARAM RAJASHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&3: Gp FOR EDUCATION Counset for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.p SURESH RAM, SC FOR TCHE The Court made the foilowing: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI WRIT PETITI ON No.20961 ot 2026 DATED 7TH JULY 2026 Between: Bandari Ashwini Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Education Department, Dr B.R Ambedkar, Telangana State Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and two others. Respondents :ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. declaring that the action of the respondents, more particularly the 3d respondent in erroneously/wrongly considering the petitioner, under 'Scheduled Caste Group-1 OU Local Calegory' instead of Scheduled Caste Group_lll (NETHAKANI-22 (SC) OU Locat Category to which the petitioner belongs, in the TG ECET Admjssions 2026, during certificate verification and web counselling process, despite production of original caste certificate bearrng No. CND022635783b35, dated 16 06 2026, issued by the competent authority and the provisional allotment of seat in First phase in Civrl Engineering erroneously under Scheduled Caste-l Category, instead of Scheduled Caste_lll ignoring the petitroners category as laJegory, Scheduled Caste Category- lll as mentioned- and recorded in the TG ECET -2026 Registration Form, Hall Ticket and Rank Card as i egal, nigfrnanOeO, arbitrary, unjust, devoid of lawful reaions igainst the doctrine of legitimate expectation and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 2

of the Constltutron of lndia, by holding that the petitioner belong to Scheduled Caste Group-lll OU consequently direct the 3'' [o"ri C"t"goty and under iesoonAent,- to consider the petitioner Scheduled Caste Group-lll OU Local category lr afiotment of seat tn TG ECET Admissions-2026 web counseffing strictly as per the options exercised b1' ine petitioier and in accordance with the petitioners list in TG ECET Admissions-2026 irnf , tn" merit and pass .." Heard Mr.Gouraram Rajasekhar Reddy' learned counsel for2. the petitioner and Sri A.P Suresh Ram' learned Standing Counsel forTelanganaCouncilofHigherEducation,appearingfor respondent No.2 The case of the petitioner, in brief is that she completed a3. Diploma in Civil Engineering from Government Polytechnic College for Women, Warangal, and applied for lateral entry admission into B.E /B'Tech' course through TGECET-2026' the second year to Scheduled Further case of the petitioner is that she belongs Caste Group-lll (Nethakani-22) and secured Rank No 51 in the Civil Engineering branch and an overall rank of 803 Further case of the petitioner is that, at the time of certificate verification on '18 06 2026' though she produced a new caste certificate' dated 16 06 2026' wherein,shewasshownasbelongingtoScheduledCaste Group-lll, the respondents erroneously treated her as belonging to Scheduled Caste Group-1, by relying on her earlier caste certificate' 3

Consequently, she was considered under the wrong reservation category during counselling and was allotted a seat in Civil Engineering at Gokaraju Rangaraju lnstitute of Engineering and Technology, Bachupally, Hyderabad, which was her sixth preference. Further case of the petitioner is that, on noticing the error, she approached the offlce of respondent No.3 on 25.06.2026 and 29-06.2026 and submitted a representation seeking correction of her caste category. However, the respondents refused to rectify the same on the ground that the allotment process had already been completed. Further case of the petitioner is that the erroneous action of the respondents in treating her as belonging to Scheduled Caste Group-|, carrying 1% reservation, instead of Scheduled Caste Group-lll, carrying 5% reservation, deprived her of the benefit of reservation available under her correct sub-category, resulting in the allotment of a lower-preference college, while candidates lower in merit under Scheduled Caste Group-lll were allotted better colleges than her. Hence, the present writ petition. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent4.

No'3committedanerror,intreatingthepetitionerasbelongingto of Scheduled Caste Group-lll'Scheduled Caste Group-|, instead thereby, depriving her of the benefit of reservation available under Learned counsel further submits that due her correct sub-category the petitioner was allotted her sixth preferred to the said error, at Gokaraju Rangaraju lnstitute of college i.e., Civil Engineering and she has (Autonomous), Bachupally' Hyderabad Technology of the allotted seat' also paid the requisite fee for confirmation lower in merit Learned counsel further submits that candidates under the Scheduled Caste Group-lll category secured better allotments than the petitioner and that the said error would prospects Therefore' adversely affect the petitionef s future career learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent No 3 to rectify the Scheduled the said error and consider the petitioner under Caste Group-lll category for the purpose of allotment of a seat in the TGECET Admission,2026' for respondent No 2' Learned Standing Counsel appearing 5. submits that an old caste certificate issued prior to on instructions, for web counselling' wherein' 2025 was uploaded by lhe'petitioner 5

her caste was shown as Scheduled Caste, but no sub_category was mentioned. Thereafler, at the time of certificate verification 'l conducted on 8.06.2026, she has produced a new caste certificate, dated 16.06.2026, wherein, her caste was mentioned as Schedule Caste Group-lll. As such, inadvertenfly, the respondents have considered the petitioner's Scheduled Caste sub_category as Group-|, instead of Group-lll, during the allotment process. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the allotment process has already been completed and the petitioner was allotted her sixth preferred college, i.e., Civil Engineering at Gokaraju Rangaraju lnstitute of Technology (Autonomous), Bachupally, Hyderabad and she has also paid the requisite fee for confirmation of the alrotted seat. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner produced a new caste certificate, dated 16.06.2026 at the time of certificate verification conducted on 18.06.2026, wherein, she was shown as belonging to Scheduled Caste Group-lll. lt is also not in dispute that the candidature of the petitioner was inadvertenily considered 6

underscheduledCasteGroup-l,insteadofGroup.lll,duringthe of such incorrect consideration of allotment process. On account a seat in her sixth the petitioner was allotted her sub-category, is considered under preferred college. However, if her candidature the correct Scheduled Caste sub-category' she would be allotted a seat in a better college in accordance with her merit' reservation web by her during the benefits and the options exercised counselling Process ln view of the above discussion' this Writ Petition is disposed 7. of the of, directing respondent No'3 to reconsider the candidature by her during petitioner in accordance with the options exercised process and allot a seat as per her eligibility' the web counselling Caste sub- her correct Scheduled taking into consideration law No costs category, strictly in accordance with stand applications' if any' shall Pending miscellaneous closed Sd,.C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICER To, B R: Department' ?l 1 The Principal Secretary to Government' Education of State. Hyderabad' Saifabad' Ambedkar Telangana staie-sectetariai' Telangana OPP Mahavir 2 The Secretary' Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hoipital Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500 028 Admissions' Sankethika VidYa Bhavan' TG ECET-2026 J The convenor' Masab Tank, Hyderabad-soo 028

4. One CC to SRt GOURARAM RAJASHEKAR REDDY, Advocate p.5. One CC to SRt A IOPUCI SURESH RAM, SC FOR TCHE tOpUCl6. Two CCs to Gp FOR EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 07t07t2026 ORDER e J TA re 1 c Y q WP.No.20961 of 2026 2U6 (') J U t 0 I ao ,1: .a- \.. ,1,. t (i '\.I t \: \:---- --. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS qb ,l>

132571 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 20961 OF 2026 Between: Bandari Ashwini, D/o Bandari Laxman, aged 18 years, Occupation Student, R/o House No.6-55/1, Badampally, Jannaram Mandal, Mancherail District, Telangana-504 205 ...PETITIONER AND '1 Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, . The State of Education Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Telangana Council of Higher Education, Rep. by its Secretary, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-S00 028. 3. The Convenor, TG ECEI-2026 Admissions, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-SO0 028 ...RESPONDENTS

the Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the Respondents, more particularly the 3rd Respondent in erroneously/wrongly considering the Petitioner, under 'Scheduled 'Scheduled Caste Group-lllCaste Group-1 OU Local Category', instead of (NETHAKANI-22 (SC) OU Local Category' to which the petitioner belongs, in the TG ECET Admissions 2026, during certificate verification and web counselling process, despite production of original caste certificate bearing No. CND022635783035, dated 16.06.2026, issued by the competent authority and the provisional allotment of seat in First phase in civir Engineering erroneousry under schedured caste_l petitioner,s category' instead of schedured caste-, category, ignoring the category as Schedured caste category-,r as mentioned and recorded in the TG E.ET-2026 Registration Form, Hall Ticket and Rank Card as illegal, highhanded, arbitrary, unjust, devoid of rawfur reasons against the doctrine of regitimate expectation and unconstitutionar, being viorative of Articres 14 and 21 0f the constitution of rndia, by holding that the petitioner berong to schedured caste Group-* oU Locar category and consequenfly direct the 3rd Respondent, to consider the petitioner under Scheduled caste Group-il ou Locar category in ailotment of seat in TG ECET Admissions-2026 web counsering stricry as per the options exercised by the petitioner and in accordance with the petitioner,s rank in the merit rist in TG ECET Admissions-2026

l.A. NO:1 oF 2026 Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 3rd Respondent to reserve one seat in schedured caste Group-, ou Locar category in TG ECET Admissions-2026, in the corege to which the petitioner ought to have been a,otted in phase-r counsering, stricry in accordance with the option exercised and the rank of the petitioner in the merit rist, pending disposar of the writ Petition. l.A. NO:2 oF 2026 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent, to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 29.06.2026, through a reasoned and speaking order, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counset for the petitioner: SRI GOURARAM RAJASHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&3: Gp FOR EDUCATION Counset for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.p SURESH RAM, SC FOR TCHE The Court made the foilowing: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI WRIT PETITI ON No.20961 ot 2026 DATED 7TH JULY 2026 Between: Bandari Ashwini Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Education Department, Dr B.R Ambedkar, Telangana State Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and two others. Respondents :ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. declaring that the action of the respondents, more particularly the 3d respondent in erroneously/wrongly considering the petitioner, under 'Scheduled Caste Group-1 OU Local Calegory' instead of Scheduled Caste Group_lll (NETHAKANI-22 (SC) OU Locat Category to which the petitioner belongs, in the TG ECET Admjssions 2026, during certificate verification and web counselling process, despite production of original caste certificate bearrng No. CND022635783b35, dated 16 06 2026, issued by the competent authority and the provisional allotment of seat in First phase in Civrl Engineering erroneously under Scheduled Caste-l Category, instead of Scheduled Caste_lll ignoring the petitroners category as laJegory, Scheduled Caste Category- lll as mentioned- and recorded in the TG ECET -2026 Registration Form, Hall Ticket and Rank Card as i egal, nigfrnanOeO, arbitrary, unjust, devoid of lawful reaions igainst the doctrine of legitimate expectation and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 2

of the Constltutron of lndia, by holding that the petitioner belong to Scheduled Caste Group-lll OU consequently direct the 3'' [o"ri C"t"goty and under iesoonAent,- to consider the petitioner Scheduled Caste Group-lll OU Local category lr afiotment of seat tn TG ECET Admissions-2026 web counseffing strictly as per the options exercised b1' ine petitioier and in accordance with the petitioners list in TG ECET Admissions-2026 irnf , tn" merit and pass .." Heard Mr.Gouraram Rajasekhar Reddy' learned counsel for2. the petitioner and Sri A.P Suresh Ram' learned Standing Counsel forTelanganaCouncilofHigherEducation,appearingfor respondent No.2 The case of the petitioner, in brief is that she completed a3. Diploma in Civil Engineering from Government Polytechnic College for Women, Warangal, and applied for lateral entry admission into B.E /B'Tech' course through TGECET-2026' the second year to Scheduled Further case of the petitioner is that she belongs Caste Group-lll (Nethakani-22) and secured Rank No 51 in the Civil Engineering branch and an overall rank of 803 Further case of the petitioner is that, at the time of certificate verification on '18 06 2026' though she produced a new caste certificate' dated 16 06 2026' wherein,shewasshownasbelongingtoScheduledCaste Group-lll, the respondents erroneously treated her as belonging to Scheduled Caste Group-1, by relying on her earlier caste certificate' 3

Consequently, she was considered under the wrong reservation category during counselling and was allotted a seat in Civil Engineering at Gokaraju Rangaraju lnstitute of Engineering and Technology, Bachupally, Hyderabad, which was her sixth preference. Further case of the petitioner is that, on noticing the error, she approached the offlce of respondent No.3 on 25.06.2026 and 29-06.2026 and submitted a representation seeking correction of her caste category. However, the respondents refused to rectify the same on the ground that the allotment process had already been completed. Further case of the petitioner is that the erroneous action of the respondents in treating her as belonging to Scheduled Caste Group-|, carrying 1% reservation, instead of Scheduled Caste Group-lll, carrying 5% reservation, deprived her of the benefit of reservation available under her correct sub-category, resulting in the allotment of a lower-preference college, while candidates lower in merit under Scheduled Caste Group-lll were allotted better colleges than her. Hence, the present writ petition. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent4.

No'3committedanerror,intreatingthepetitionerasbelongingto of Scheduled Caste Group-lll'Scheduled Caste Group-|, instead thereby, depriving her of the benefit of reservation available under Learned counsel further submits that due her correct sub-category the petitioner was allotted her sixth preferred to the said error, at Gokaraju Rangaraju lnstitute of college i.e., Civil Engineering and she has (Autonomous), Bachupally' Hyderabad Technology of the allotted seat' also paid the requisite fee for confirmation lower in merit Learned counsel further submits that candidates under the Scheduled Caste Group-lll category secured better allotments than the petitioner and that the said error would prospects Therefore' adversely affect the petitionef s future career learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent No 3 to rectify the Scheduled the said error and consider the petitioner under Caste Group-lll category for the purpose of allotment of a seat in the TGECET Admission,2026' for respondent No 2' Learned Standing Counsel appearing 5. submits that an old caste certificate issued prior to on instructions, for web counselling' wherein' 2025 was uploaded by lhe'petitioner 5

her caste was shown as Scheduled Caste, but no sub_category was mentioned. Thereafler, at the time of certificate verification 'l conducted on 8.06.2026, she has produced a new caste certificate, dated 16.06.2026, wherein, her caste was mentioned as Schedule Caste Group-lll. As such, inadvertenfly, the respondents have considered the petitioner's Scheduled Caste sub_category as Group-|, instead of Group-lll, during the allotment process. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the allotment process has already been completed and the petitioner was allotted her sixth preferred college, i.e., Civil Engineering at Gokaraju Rangaraju lnstitute of Technology (Autonomous), Bachupally, Hyderabad and she has also paid the requisite fee for confirmation of the alrotted seat. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner produced a new caste certificate, dated 16.06.2026 at the time of certificate verification conducted on 18.06.2026, wherein, she was shown as belonging to Scheduled Caste Group-lll. lt is also not in dispute that the candidature of the petitioner was inadvertenily considered 6

underscheduledCasteGroup-l,insteadofGroup.lll,duringthe of such incorrect consideration of allotment process. On account a seat in her sixth the petitioner was allotted her sub-category, is considered under preferred college. However, if her candidature the correct Scheduled Caste sub-category' she would be allotted a seat in a better college in accordance with her merit' reservation web by her during the benefits and the options exercised counselling Process ln view of the above discussion' this Writ Petition is disposed 7. of the of, directing respondent No'3 to reconsider the candidature by her during petitioner in accordance with the options exercised process and allot a seat as per her eligibility' the web counselling Caste sub- her correct Scheduled taking into consideration law No costs category, strictly in accordance with stand applications' if any' shall Pending miscellaneous closed Sd,.C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICER To, B R: Department' ?l 1 The Principal Secretary to Government' Education of State. Hyderabad' Saifabad' Ambedkar Telangana staie-sectetariai' Telangana OPP Mahavir 2 The Secretary' Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hoipital Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500 028 Admissions' Sankethika VidYa Bhavan' TG ECET-2026 J The convenor' Masab Tank, Hyderabad-soo 028

4. One CC to SRt GOURARAM RAJASHEKAR REDDY, Advocate p.5. One CC to SRt A IOPUCI SURESH RAM, SC FOR TCHE tOpUCl6. Two CCs to Gp FOR EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 07t07t2026 ORDER e J TA re 1 c Y q WP.No.20961 of 2026 2U6 (') J U t 0 I ao ,1: .a- \.. ,1,. t (i '\.I t \: \:---- --. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS qb ,l>