Dismissed

T.Aruna Kumari and 3 Others v. the State of Ap., Rep by Its Secretary and Anothers

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Mar 2024WP/40222/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking Ph.D. degrees. The Court held the matter was covered by an earlier order in W.P. No.23372 of 2021, directing the University to complete the process for scholars admitted before the 11.07.2009 cut-off within three months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs; the university directed to complete the process for eligible scholars within three months.

T.Aruna Kumari and 3 Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 40222 OF 201 fi

¶7

Between:

¶8

T.Aruna Kumari, D/o.T.Yadagiri, Aged about 40 Yrs, Occ: Assistant Professor R/o H.No.4-8-142 Mangalavaripet, Rayachoor Dist.

¶9

Karnataka State

¶10

A.Subangini Devi, D/o.R.Arumugam, Aged about 45 Yrs Occ: Lecturer R/o Srividya Mandir Arts & Science College, Katheri, Uthangarai (TK) Krishnagiri Dist., Tamil Nadu

¶11

K.Subhashini Devi, W/o. C,.Shanmugam Aged about 38 Yrs, Occ; Lecturer R/o 50N10 C12, Kamaraja Nagar, Pothanur Post Namakkal Dist., Tamil Nadu

¶12

S.EIanchezhiyan, S /o M.Shanmugam Aged about 37 Yrs, Occ; Lecturer R/o Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary (Higher Education) Secretariat Buildings, at Hyderabad.

¶16

The Dravidian University, Rep. by its Registrar, At Srinivasavanam Kuppam, Chittoor District

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

(W.P is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of 2"'^ petitioner as per C.O.dt. 21/09/2010 in W.P.M.P. 33774/2016)

¶20

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 writ order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned action of the respondent herein in not awarding the Ph.D to the petitioners by conducting Viva-Voce and other procedures in spite of completion of the research and study under the guide and submission of thesis way back in the years 2011 to 14, without any justifiable reasons as illegal, arbitrary, void abinitio and violative of article 14 & 2l'of Constitution of India besides violative of due procedure of law and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to award Ph.Ds to the petitioners by conducting Viva-Voce within a period of 30 days by following the due procedures contemplated under the rules.

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015rWPMP. NO: 51933 OF 2015)

¶22

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 To direct the respondent to award Ph.Ds to the petitioners by conducting Viva-Voce within a period of 30 days by following the due procedures contemplated under the rules and to pass such other order/'s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.CHALAPATHI RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI B.PARAMESWARA RAO (SC FOR DRAVIDAN UNIVERSITY)

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

[3333]

¶28

APHC010292662015

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶30

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶31

MONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 40222/2015

¶35

Between:

¶36

T.aruna Kumari And 3 Others and Others

¶37

...PETITIONER(S)

¶38

AND

¶39

The State Of Ap Rep By Its Secretary And Anothers and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶41

1.SCHALAPATH1 RAO

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP)

¶44

2.KOTESWARA RAO MUTHINENI (STANDING COUNSEL FOR DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY)

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

¶48

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶49

“....to issue writ order or direction more particularly^oneinthe nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned^actionofthe respondent herein in not awarding the Ph.D to the petitioners^by conducting Viva-Voce and other procedures in spite^{ofcompletionof} the research and study under the guide and submission of thesis way back in the years 2011 to 14 without any justifiable^{reasonsasillegal} arbitrary void abinitio and violative of article 14^{&21ofConstitution} of India besides violative of due procedure of law^and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct^{therespondentto} award Ph.Ds to the petitioners by conducting Viva-Voce within a period of 30 days by following the due procedures contemplated under the rules and to pass...”

¶50

On 11.12.2015, this Court granted the following interim^order;-

¶51

W.P.No.40222 of 2015

¶52

Rule nisi. Call for the records.

¶53

Notice returnable in three (03) weeks.

¶54

The Government Pleader for Higher Education takes notice^forthe respondent and Sri B.Parameshwar Rao, Standing Counsel^takesnotice for the 2"'^ respondent.

¶55

W.P.M.P.No.51933 of 2015

¶56

There shall be interim direction to the 2"'^ respondent^toevaluate the thesis submitted by the petitioners and award Ph.Ds^{tothepetitioners} by following the procedure in accordance with the Rules.”

¶57

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education^and

¶58

Mr.M.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Dravidian University. There is no representation on behalf of^{thepetitioners.}

¶59

During hearing, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Dravidian University would submit that the issue involved in^{thisWritPetitionis} squarely covered by earlier orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.23372 of 2021, dated 15.11.2023, wherein a learned^single

¶60

¶61

¶62

Judge of this Court passed a detailed Order. Operative^portionofthe

¶63

said order reads as under;

¶64

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the^case,theWrit Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2/ University to complete the process as resolved by the Executive Council of the respondent No.2/University in respect of scholars admitted prior to 11.07.2009, also, within a period of Three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”

¶65

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 shall be no order as to costs.

¶66

dated 6. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order 15.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23372 of²⁰²¹ to this order.

¶67

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if^any,inthe

¶68

Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

¶69

SDI- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To.

The Secretary (Higher Education), State of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, at Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶75

The Registrar, Dravidian University, At Srinivasavanam, Kuppam, Chittoor District

¶76

One CC to SRI S.CHALAPATHI RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶77

Two CCS to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, High Court of^Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶78

One CC to SRI B.PARAMESWARA RAO, (SC FOR DRAVIDAN UNIVERSITY) [OPUC]

¶79

Two C.D Copies MBT sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.40222 of 2015

DISPOSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS

¶85

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶86

WRIT PETITION No.23372 of 2021

¶87

ORDER:

¶88

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶89

of the Constitution of India seeking the following^relief:-

¶90

.. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 2nd respondent herein in not awarding the Ph.D., Degrees to the petitioners by conducting Viva Voce and other procedures of evaluation in spiie' of completion of^the research and study under the guide and submission of thesis long back without any justifiable reasons as illegal, arbitrary, void abinitio and violative of article 14, 16 and 21 of The Constitution of India besides violation of University Grants Commission Regulations 2009, procedure of law and violative of principles of natural Justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to award Ph.D., Degrees to the petitioners forthwith within a reasonable time as may be specified by this Hon’ble Court by conducting Viva Voce and following the due procedures contemplated under the University Grants Commission Regulations 2009, rules and regulations....”

¶91

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are residents of different parts of the States in India and among^them , some are working in Government Colleges and some are in Private Colleges. The case of the petitioners is that with an intent to get salary hike and for future promotion, they got admission^inthe respondent No.2 University as Research Scholars to do Research Programmes (Ph.D) in the respective branches i.e. English, Library Science, Mathematics, Physical Education, Physics,^Bio-

¶92

¶93

Technology and Zoology, as per the Notification issued iin the year 2008, for pursuing their studies and to submit their respective thesis. The time fixed for submission of thesis was between Sl^t May, 2011 and Sl^t May, 2014 and the same is extended till 31.05.2019 on payment of late fee for a sum of Rs.30,000/- vide Circular, dated 13.06.2018.

¶94

All the petitioners have submitted their respective thesis to the respondent No.2/University and some of the petitioners have resubmitted the thesis as soon as they were informed for compliance with resubmission fee. HoSever, all the petitioners submitted their respective thesis between the years 2011 and 2019, but the respondent No.2/University thereafter failed to inform the petitioners regarding consideration of their thesis and as such there is inordinate delay on the part of the respondent No.2/University in rolling out the process of adjudication of the thesis submitted by the petitioners, due to which they have lost promotions, salaiy hikes etc., in their respective jobs. The respondent No.2/University having collected lakhs of rupees from the petitioners, have failed to take any steps to adjudicate their respective thesis by way of evaluation, conducting viva-voce even after lapse of so many years. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The respondent No.2/University filed counter denying^the contents of the petition inter alia contended that the respondent University processed the thesis of all the petitioners; but

¶95

¶96

however, the State Level Committee constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to review the Court cases in University, has reviewed the Court cases of the respondent No. 2/University during July, 2021 and as per the recommendations made by the said Committee, the respondent No.2/University temporarily kept in abeyance the process of awarding Ph.Ds through Off-campus mode w.e.f. 04.08.2021. 5. While the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel representing for respondent No.2/University^submitted the instructions vide No.DU/LC/2023, dated 07.11.2023 wherein the Inquiry Officer submitted the Report to the Government on 13.06.2023 and as per the directions of the Government, pending examination and placing of the entire Report of the Inquiry Authority, the matter related to Off-campus M.Phil/Ph.Ds was placed before the Executive Council of the University in the meeting held on 27.06.2023 and it^wasresolved as under:

¶97

“Resolved to process all the dissertations/these of Offcampus M.Phil/Ph.D scholars, who were admitted during^the academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09 before the UGC cut off date of 11.07.2009 and award Degrees to the eligible candidates, provided there are no court cases restraining^the University to award Degrees to them. In respect of^thescholars admitted prior to 11.07.2009 and court cases are pending,^itis resolved to wait for the final orders of the Hon’ble High Court in the matter

¶98

Resolved to write to UGC seeking permission to process the dissertations/theses of M.Phil/Ph.Ds submitted by the candidates, whose admissions are after 11.07.2009, giving all details and justification... ”

¶99

¶100

On perusal of the instructions filed by the learned Government Pleader for the respondent No.2/University, it is evident that as per the instructions filed by the learned Standing Counsel that it was resolved to process all the dissertations/thesis of Off-campus M.Phil/Ph.D scholars, who were admitted during the academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09 before the UGC cut-off date of 11.07.2009. Indisputably, all the petitioners got admitted in the respondent No.2/University on 31.05.2009 and they were directed to submit their respective thesis on or before 31.05.2012 and not later than 31.05.2014 and apparently, no cut-off date was fixed to the scholars who got admitted prior to 11.07.2009 and the instructions filed by the learned Standing Counsel further discloses that it was resolved by the Executive Council of the respondent No.2/University^that ‘in respect of the scholars admitted prior to 11.07.2019 and court cases are pending, it is resolved to wait for the final orders of the Honhle High Court in the matter’.

¶101

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2/ University to complete the process as resolved by the Executive Council of the respondent No.2/University in respect of scholars admitted prior to 11.07.2009, also, within a period of Three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶102

¶103

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶104

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶105

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶106

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶107

Date : 15.11.2023 KGR

¶108

¶109

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶110

<•

¶111

WRIT PETITION No.23372 of 2021

¶112

Date : 15.11.2023

¶113

KGR

T.Aruna Kumari and 3 Others v. the State of Ap., Rep by Its Secretary and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Aruna Kumari and 3 Others v. the State of Ap., Rep by Its Secretary and Anothers

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

V Shivakalyani Vs the Union of India

Sesham Rao Niranjan Vs the State of Ap

Pedasinghu Mahalakshmayya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Megavath Muniya, S/o M.Baginia, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.Dalai Kailashini Vs the Registrar, Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences and 4 Ot

Shaik Anwar Hussain, Vs The Government of India