High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by education colleges seeking permission for B.Ed. courses as infructuous on 10.01.2024.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28458 OF 201 fi
Between:
Prakasham District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Khairatabad, Hyderabad. ^
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayinq that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Petition, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring action of first respondent in not qrantino permission to petitioners colleges to start B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. C^ses despL"he hav'ng been granted by National Council for Teacher Eduction ind starting B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. Courses for the academicyear2016-2017 nd seeking to proceed with the counseling from 27.08.2016 to 29.08.2016 for
admission into B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. Courses by third respondentas arbitrary, illegal and consequential direct the first respondent to grant permission to petitioner colleges to start B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. Courses for the academic year 2016-2017 and include their names in the counselingfrom22-08-2016to24-08- 2016 for admission into B.Ed.and B.P.Ed. Courses to be conducted by third respondent. ^
LA. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 35235 OF 2016)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the third respondent to include petitioner's colleges in the counseling for admission into B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. Courses for the academic year 2016-2017 scheduled to be held from 22.08.2016 to 24.08.2016, pending permission from first respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitloner(s);M/s. A. GAYATRI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2,4: GP FOR SCHOOLEDUCATION
Counsel for the Respondents No.3,5: SRI. M. SRINIVAS,SCFOR ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY
The Court made the following: ORDER
/
1
f
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.28458 of 2016
ORDER:
Sri.G.Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri.A.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cause in thewrit petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if
any in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
SDI- K.J. RAJA BABU
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTIOri OFFICER
To,
v\tlM
s.
HIGH COURT
DATED:10/01/2024
ORDER
WP.No.28458 of 2016
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
Sankar Reddy College of Education, Sankar Reddy College of Physical Education
The State of Andhra Pradesh
APEDCET-2016, Sri Venkateswara University, Acharya Nagarjuna University, The Commissioner & Director School Education
V Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
