Distance Education Degrees Obtained Through Study Centres Outside University Jurisdiction Not Valid: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has said that distance education degrees obtained by students through study centres outside the university's jurisdiction are not valid. In doing so the court upheld the rejection of candidates seeking appointment as Librarian under a government notification, who had obtained Masters in Library Science through distance education from Acharya Nagarjuna...
The Telangana High Court has said that distance education degrees obtained by students through study centres outside the university's jurisdiction are not valid.
In doing so the court upheld the rejection of candidates seeking appointment as Librarian under a government notification, who had obtained Masters in Library Science through distance education from Acharya Nagarjuna University–the jurisdiction of which was confined to Andhra Pradesh, but via study centres located in Telangana.
It also said that past appointments made on the basis of similar degrees could not be relied upon to claim parity.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin referred to a 2013 Public Notice issued by University Grants Commission which states that “a university established or incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond the territory of the State of its location.”
"The establishment and operation of study centres by Acharya Nagarjuna University in the State of Telangana is, therefore, plainly in derogation of the said binding regulatory framework," the court said.
The court further referred to Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act which pertains to the continuation of admission-related arrangements and equitable access to educational opportunities for a limited transitional period.
The bench observed that this provision does not, either expressly or by necessary implication, override or dilute the binding regulatory regime framed by the UGC with respect to territorial jurisdiction. The two operate in distinct and independent domains, and cannot be conflated so as to confer legitimacy upon an otherwise impermissible exercise of jurisdiction, it added.
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the M.Li.Sc. degree obtained by the respondents from Acharya Nagarjuna University through distance education study centres in Telangana is not a valid qualification under Notification No.30/2022, being contrary to the UGC Public Notice dated 27.06.2013, and thus the direction of the learned Single Judge to consider their candidature without deciding this foundational issue is legally unsustainable," it said.
Setting aside the common order of the Single Judge, the Division Bench held that the Telangana Public Service Commission and the appointing authorities were at liberty to proceed with recruitment to the post of Librarian strictly in accordance with law.
The case arose out of recruitment pursuant to Notification No.30/2022 dated 31.12.2022, issued by the Telangana State Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Librarian. A total of 71 vacancies were notified, comprising 40 posts under the Commissioner of Intermediate Education and 31 posts under the Commissioner of Technical Education.
The notification specifically provided that candidates who had obtained degrees through Open Universities/Distance Education mode were required to show that such degrees were recognised by the relevant statutory authority.
It further incorporated the University Grants Commission Public Notice dated 27.06.2013, which states that a university established under a State Act “shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond the territory of the State of its location.” The onus of proving such recognition was expressly placed on the candidate.
The writ petitioners had participated in the selection process, were included in the provisional selection list dated 09.09.2024, and thereafter underwent certificate verification. It was then found that they had obtained their M.Li.Sc. degrees through distance mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University, but through study centres located in places that now fall within the State of Telangana.
On verification, Acharya Nagarjuna University furnished particulars of such candidates. Although the university indicated that the centres were “within jurisdiction” with reference to the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, it simultaneously disclosed that the centres were in fact situated in Telangana. The TGPSC thereafter rejected the claim of the candidates by memo dated 29.08.2024, holding that the degrees had been obtained through study centres located outside the territorial jurisdiction of Acharya Nagarjuna University, whose statutory university area is confined to Guntur and Prakasam districts of Andhra Pradesh.
The candidates challenged that rejection before a Single Judge, who accepted their plea of discriminatory treatment on the footing that in earlier recruitments, including under Notification Nos.20/2017 and 28/2017, similar degrees had allegedly been accepted and promotions had also been granted on that basis. The Single Judge accordingly directed the authorities to consider or reconsider their claim for appointment purely on merit, without reference to the rejection memo.
That order was challenged in the present batch of writ appeals by other meritorious candidates as well as by the TGPSC.
The bench noted that the territorial jurisdiction of the University is statutorily confined to Guntur and Prakasam, and that a State university constituted under statute cannot establish or operate study centres beyond such limits.
The Court further held that the candidates had failed to discharge the burden cast upon them under the notification. The communication issued by Acharya Nagarjuna University, the Bench said, could not enlarge the university's territorial jurisdiction by administrative assertion, nor could Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act be read to dilute binding UGC norms.
The Bench also relied on earlier decisions, including Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh, Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma v. Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, and a prior decision of the High Court in B. Sai Kiran v. State of Telangana where it had already been held that degrees obtained through Acharya Nagarjuna University distance education study centres located in Telangana were not valid for higher education or employment purposes.
On the plea of discrimination, the Division Bench held that the Single Judge had erred in treating the case as falling outside the doctrine of negative equality. Referring to Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas, the Court reiterated that Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality or irregularity. Even assuming that some appointments or promotions had been granted earlier on the basis of similar qualifications, that would not create an enforceable right in favour of the present candidates.
The Court added that each recruitment process has to be tested on the terms of the governing notification, and in the present case the notification expressly incorporated the UGC Public Notice as a binding condition of eligibility. Past practice, even if assumed, could not override a clear eligibility condition or compel the recruiting authority to act contrary to law.
Holding that the Single Judge had failed to first decide the “foundational issue” of validity of the qualification, the Division Bench allowed all the writ appeals, set aside the common order dated 12.12.2025 passed in the writ petitions, and dismissed the writ petitions themselves. All interim orders were vacated.
Case Title: V. Anil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. and connected matters
Case No.: Writ Appeal Nos.176, 185, 190, 191, 232, 251, 258, 259 and 260 of 2026
Appearance: Sri G. Vidyasagar, Senior Counsel representing Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, for the appellants in W.A. Nos.176, 232 and 251 of 2026; Sri M. Surender Rao, Senior Counsel representing Sri Rama Rao Kilaru, for the appellant in W.A. Nos.185, 190 and 191 of 2026; Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, Standing Counsel for Telangana Public Service Commission; Sri G. Prasanth, Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the State; Sri M.V. Rama Rao for certain private respondents; Ms. B. Rachna Reddy, Senior Counsel representing Sri Md. Baseer Riyaz, for certain private respondents; and Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma for certain private respondents.