Raheem Sulthana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.Yethiraj N.G, aged 47 yrs S/o N.Gururaja, Aakshay Grandeur Apartment 20, FFI, Muniraj Layout, VinayakNagar Subramanya^pura Post, Uttarahali, Bangalore

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Velagapudi,^Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶14

The Registrar, The Rayalaseema University, Administrative Office, Q3F6+362, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool District-518007.

¶15

The Vice Chancellor, The Rayalaseema University, Administrative Office, Q3F6+362, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool^{District-518007.}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 nd and 3"'^ respondents in not

¶18

permitting the petitioners to complete the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D) Course purportedly on the grounds of non-payment of extension fee and Non completion of course in time as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Principles of Natural Justice besides being violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the Ph.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment of the extension fee and to conduct DCM's and further stages of the course by providing one time opportunity to complete her Course.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 2"’"' and 3'"' respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the Ph.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment of the extension fee and to conduct DCM’s and further stages of the course by providing one time opportunity to complete their Course.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI HARISH KUMAR RASINENI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SMT. N. VIJAYA SANTHI, SC

¶23

FOR RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY

¶24

The Court made the following order:

1

[3328]

APHC010331252025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 16821/2025

¶33

Between:

¶34

1.RAHEEM SULTHANA, AGED 42 YRS, W/0. SHAIK ASHFAQ AHMED, H.NO. 12-4-139/1, MURSHAD GADDA, SIDDIPET, MEDAK DISTRICT

¶35

2.MR.YETHIRAJ N.G„ AGED 47 YRS S/0 N.GURURAJA , AAKSHAY GRANDEUR APARTMENT 20, FFL, MUNIRAJ LAYOUT, VINAYAKNAGAR SUBRAMANYA PURA POST,UTTARAHALI, BANGALORE

¶36

...PETITIONER(S)

¶37

AND

¶38

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶39

THE REGISTRAR, THE RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, Q3F6PLUS362, NANDYALA ROAD, PASUPULA, KUMOOL DISTRICT-518007.

¶40

THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, Q3F6PLUS362, NANDYALA ROAD, PASUPULA, KUMOOL DISTRICT-518007.

¶41

...RESPONDENT{S);

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶43

1.HARISH KUMAR RASINENI

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶45

1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

•4 ^

2

r

The Court made the following;

¶50

ORAL ORDER:

¶51

Heard Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Smt. N. Vijaya Santhi, learned Standing Counsel for Rayalaseema University.

¶52

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following^relief:

¶53

“ to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly^oneIn nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of^{the2"'^and} 3^'^ respondents in not permitting the petitioners to complete the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D) Course purportedly on the grounds of non-payment of extension fee and Non completion of course in time as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Principles of Natural Justice besides being violative^ofArticle 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently^direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the Ph.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment of the extension fee and to conduct DCM’s and further stages of the course by providing one time opportunity to complete their Course^and pass...”

¶54

Smt. N. Vijaya Santhi, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 University has submitted that she was orally instructed by the Registrar of the University that the said Registrar is not averse to the passing of the similar Order which is passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.13688 of 2024.

¶55

On verification of the Order passed by the learned Single judge in W.P.No. 13688 of 2024 dated 12.08.2024, it appears that the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on an earlier Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 04.04.2024.

¶56

3

¶57

In this view of the matter this court is of the view that it would be useful to refer to the Order passed by the learned Single Judgeⁱⁿ W.P.No.28977 of 2023, since this Order, which has been referred to in the subsequent Writ Petitions, has been relied on for granting relief in the subsequent Writ Petitions.

¶58

Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated^14.04.2024;

¶59

“ 11. It is also evident from the material available on record that basing on the resolutions of the various committees and approvals of the Executive Committee, the University is continuing the research program and is confined to the resolutions^oftheECand the EC has instructed the University to close the research program after completing the pending formalities for the research^scholars whose research admissions were in live before 30.04.2024. The only ground on which petitioners’ case was rejected^isthatthey have not paid the fees as they are not aware in view^ofthefact that the last date for payment of fees was uploaded only^inthe website.

¶60

In view of the fact that the respondent University has passed a resolution and thereafter issued various circulars^{forclosureofthe} Ph.D. program before 30.04.2024, instead of going into^meritsof the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by directing the respondents to consider^thecaseof the petitioners by receiving the payment of the research^feeduly condoning the delay as a one time opportunity to the^petitioners, within a period often (10) days from the date of receipt^ofacopy of this order and thereafter, the petitioners may be allowed to complete their Ph.D. program in accordance with law.”

¶61

Having regard to these facts, there shall be a direction^{totheOfficial} Respondents to allow the Writ Petitioners to deposit^{therequiredfeewithina} period of ten (10) days in terms of the order passed^{bythisCourtdated} 04.04.2024 in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 and also to permit^{theWritPetitionersto} submit the Ph.D Thesis. It is needless to state that the Official Respondents

¶62

1

¶63

shall adhere to the directions passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 04.04.2024.

¶64

It is noticed that several Writ Petitions have earlier been filed seeking similar reliefs. However, the University has not proposed to grant any specific time for the submission of the Ph.D Thesis. Today, when^this matter was called-up, this Court had posed a query to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for University as to within what time the University desires the Ph.D Scholars to submit their Ph.D Thesis. Later, on instructions, learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that the grant of six months’ time would be reasonable for submission of Ph.D Thesis by the Ph.D Scholars.

¶65

Having considered this request, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the University to grant six months’ time to the Ph.D Scholars not only in the present Writ Petition but also in the Writ Petitions which were previously disposed of, where this Court had directed the University to accept the extension fee and permitted the Scholars to submit their Ph.D Thesis.

¶66