Disposed

Chandiwala Mounika Punit v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Feb 2024WP/3880/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing the university to award her Ph.D. No representation for the petitioner appeared; the court disposed of the writ petition in terms of its earlier order in W.P.No.23372 of 2021 directing the university to complete the process for scholars admitted prior to 11.07.2009.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the order dated 15.11.2023 in W.P.No.23372 of 2021; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Chandiwala Mounika Punit Vs The Government… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

O'
o
A

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3880 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chandiwala Mounika Punit, W/o. Punk Chandiwala Aged about 40 years, Occ: Asst. Professor R/o. B/504, Kusum Bharathi, 0pp. TATA SSL, Datta Pada Road, Borivli, East Mumbai.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal, Secretary Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Dravidin University Rep. by its Registrar, Situated at Kuppam, Chittoor District-517 425

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the 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 the action of the respondents in not confirming the Ph.D. to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to award the Ph.D. to the petitioner.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 4787 OF 2014)

¶17

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 direct the respondent No.2 to conduct the^{evaluationandViva-} . '•^yVoce as per the rules as per the thesis submitted^{bythepetitionerpending} ./disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A JAGAN

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: 122/B PARAMESEWARA RAO

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH APHC010002332014 :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [ 3333 FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF ] FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO: 3880 OF 2014

¶25

Between:

¶26

Chandiwala Mounika Punit, W/o. Punk Chandiwala Aged^about40 years Occ: Asst. Professor R/o. B/504, Kusum Bharathi, Opp.^TATA SSL, Dana Pada Road, Borivli, East Mumbai.

¶27

...PETITIONER(S)

¶28

AND

¶29

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal,^Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶30

The Dravidin University Rep by its Registrar, Situated^atKuppam, Chittoor District - 517 425

¶31

...RESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction^{moreparticularly} one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the^actionofthe respondents in not confirming the Ph.D. to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Article 14, 21 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia} and consequently, direct the 2nd re spondent to award the Ph.D. to the petitioner and pass

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. A JAGAN

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶35

Counsel for the Respondents: 122/B PARAMESEWARA RAO

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

When the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶40

On the other hand, during the course of hearing, learned^Standing Counsel appearing for the 2"^ respondent-Dravidin University^wouldsubmit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by earlier orders of this Court in W.P.No.23372 of 2021, dated 15.11.2023. Operative portion of the said order, read as under:

¶41

“In view of the above facts and circumstances of the^case,theWrit

¶42

Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2/University^tocomplete the process as resolved by the Executive Council of the respondent No.2/University in respect of scholars admitted prior^{to11.07.2009,} also, within a period of three (03) months from the date^{ofreceiptof acopyofthis} order. ”

¶43

In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid^order,this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms of the order^dated 15.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23372 of 2021. There^{shallbenoorderasto} costs.

¶44

15.11.2023 4. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order^dated passed by this Court in W.P.No.23372 of 2021 to this^order.

¶45

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if^any, shall also stand closed.

¶46

Sd/- P.U.V. BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER :7fON^c

¶47

To.

¶48

The Government of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶49

The Dravidin University Rep. by its Registrar, Situated at Kuppa m Chittoor District - 517425

¶50

One CC to SRI A Jagan Advocate [OPUC

¶51

Two CCs to Gp For Higher Education .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶52

One CC to SRI 122/ B Paramesewara Rao Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

Two CD Copies

¶54

¶55

•a

¶56

HIGH COURT DATED:23/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3880 of 2014

;!^COUr?
O?
$
-’-fi

DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS

Chandiwala Mounika Punit v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandiwala Mounika Punit v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Saraswathi College of Education, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Repalle Christian College of Education Vs the State of Ap

Sri Saraswathi B.Ed College Vs the State of Ap

Rev Fr. Pascaali meka parish priest Vs Education School

Varre Srinivasa Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Viswabharathi College of Teacher Training, Vs the State of Ap