Difference In Nomenclature Can't Deprive College Of Admissions To AICTE-Approved AI Diploma Course: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an educational institution cannot be deprived of approval to commence an Artificial Intelligence diploma course merely because of a difference in the nomenclature adopted by the regulatory authorities. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 114]

Holding that such a discrepancy cannot override approvals already granted by the AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) and the State Government, the Court directed the authorities to include the course in the counselling process.

Justice Kiranmayee Mandava allowed a writ petition filed by a private unaided technical institution challenging the refusal of the State Board of Technical Education and Training to include its AICTE-approved Artificial Intelligence diploma course in the counselling process for the 2026–27 academic year.

The Court observed:

"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 petitioner contended that AICTE had approved the diploma course with an intake of 120 seats and the State Government had also granted permission.

However, despite the approvals granted by the AICTE and the State Government, the State Board of Technical Education and Training did not reflect the course in its affiliation proceedings solely because of a difference in nomenclature, preventing the institution from participating in the ongoing counselling process.

Accepting the petitioner's contention, the High Court found that the dispute arose solely because of a difference in the nomenclature of the course and held that such a discrepancy could not deprive the petitioner of the approvals already granted by the AICTE and the State Government.

It accordingly directed the authorities to include the course in the counselling process, permit the petitioner to admit students, and issue consequential proceedings reflecting the approved nomenclature with an intake of 120 seats.

Case Title: Sri Venkateswara Institute of Technology v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 17385 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: G. Sekhar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Higher Education.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 114