AP High Court Orders SBTET to Include AI Diploma Course Blocked by Nomenclature Mismatch
The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the State Board of Technical Education to recognise a Diploma in Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence) that AICTE had already approved, finding that a nomenclature difference could not defeat a valid approval.
A private unaided technical institution in Anantapur district walked into the APPOLYCET–2026 counselling window with two approvals in hand — one from the All India Council for Technical Education dated 4 May 2026, and one from the Andhra Pradesh government's Skills Development and Training Department dated 20 May 2026 — yet found itself unable to admit a single student to its new Diploma course in Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence). The obstacle was a discrepancy in course names across official documents. Justice Kiranmayee Mandava, sitting singly at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, disposed of Writ Petition No. 17385 of 2026 on 3 July 2026, holding that the State Board of Technical Education and Training could not deny the course's existence on the ground of a nomenclature difference when both AICTE and the State government had already sanctioned it.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Sri Venkateswara Institute of Technology, Hampapuram Village, Rapthadu Mandal, Anantapur District — represented by its Principal, Dr T. Vishnu Vardhan — is a private unaided technical institution. For the academic year 2026–2027, the institution applied to AICTE for approval to conduct new Diploma programmes. AICTE granted its Extension of Approval on 4 May 2026, covering four Diploma courses in Engineering and Technology, including one in “Artificial Intelligence” and one in Computer Engineering, each affiliated to the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh (SBTET).
Following the AICTE approval, the institution approached the Skills Development and Training (TE.A1) Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. An inspection was conducted, documents and facilities were physically verified, and the Commissioner of Technical Education submitted a report recommending commencement of the new Diploma courses, including Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence). On 20 May 2026, the Secretary to Government, Skills Development and Training (TE.A1) Department, accorded formal permission for these courses with an intake of 120 seats.
Despite holding both approvals, the institution ran into difficulty when SBTET issued its affiliation renewal on 18 June 2026. That order granted renewal for only three courses — Computer Science and Engineering (CSE, 90 seats), Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EE, 30 seats), and Electronics and Communication Engineering (EC, 60 seats) — and made no mention of the Artificial Intelligence course at all.
The Nomenclature Problem
The petitioner's counsel, Sri G. Sekhar Reddy, pointed the court to SBTET's own earlier proceedings dated 11 December 2025, in which the Board had issued a revised nomenclature list for Diploma courses. In that list, the course commonly referred to as “Artificial Intelligence” was formally designated “Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)—CAI.” The Skills Development and Training Department's permission dated 20 May 2026 also referred to the course as “Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence).”
AICTE's approval, on the other hand, used the shorter label “Artificial Intelligence.” The petitioner's case was that these labels described the same course. SBTET's affiliation renewal of 18 June 2026, however, did not include it under either name, effectively leaving 120 approved seats out of the counselling process entirely.
Counsel submitted that APPOLYCET–2026 counselling was scheduled for the very day the matter was heard — 3 July 2026 — and had been extended only until 4 July 2026. Unless SBTET reflected the course in the counselling system immediately, the institution would lose an entire academic year of admissions despite holding valid approvals from two competent authorities.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Kiranmayee Mandava examined the three sets of documents: the AICTE Extension of Approval dated 4 May 2026, the State government's permission dated 20 May 2026, and SBTET's own revised nomenclature proceedings dated 11 December 2025. Reading them together, the court found that all three pointed to the same course. SBTET had itself prescribed the designation “Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)—CAI” in December 2025. The AICTE approval for “Artificial Intelligence” and the State government's permission for “Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)” were, in substance, approvals for the very course that SBTET had already named.
The court held that SBTET, while issuing the affiliation renewal on 18 June 2026, “ought to have shown the said course also as one of the permitted course.” A difference in the short-form label used by AICTE against the full nomenclature prescribed by SBTET itself did not justify omitting the course from the affiliation order. The court found that depriving the petitioner of the AICTE approval and the State government's permission on the basis of that difference could not be sustained.
The reasoning was compact but direct: where two competent regulatory authorities have independently granted approval for a course, the subordinate affiliation body cannot nullify those approvals by citing a label discrepancy that its own earlier circular had resolved. The court did not address any deeper question of institutional eligibility, infrastructure adequacy, or compliance — those were not in dispute. The sole point was whether a nomenclature variation was a valid ground to exclude the course from counselling.
Directions Issued
The court directed the respondents to include “Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)” in the APPOLYCET–2026 counselling process and to permit Sri Venkateswara Institute of Technology to participate in that counselling and admit students to the course. The respondents were further directed to issue consequential proceedings reflecting the course as “Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)” with an intake of 120 students, consistent with the AICTE approval, so as to enable the institution to take admissions.
Order
Writ Petition No. 17385 of 2026 was disposed of on 3 July 2026 with the directions above. The court made no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the matter were closed as a consequence of disposal.