Kotcharlakota Jhansi Rani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

...Respondents

¶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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly^{oneinnatureof} Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in not permitting the petitioners to complete the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D)

¶21

Course purportedly on the grounds of non-payment of^{extensionfeeandNon} completion of course in time as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Principles of Natural Justice besides being violative^{ofArticle14and21} of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to complete the Ph.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment of the extension fee and to conduct DCMs and further stages of the course by providing one time opportunity to complete her Course.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to permit the petitioners to complete the Ph.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment of^{theextensionfeeandto} conduct DCMs and further stages of the course by providing one time opportunity to complete their Course.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners: HARISH KUMAR RASINENI

¶25

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

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: M/S NIMMAGADDA VIJAYA

¶27

SANTHI SC FOR RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY

¶28

The Court made the following order:

¶29

fe

¶30

APHC010543532025

¶31

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

¶32

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 28379 OF 2025

¶36

Between:

¶37

KOTCHARLAKOTA JHANSI RANI, aged 41 yrs D/o K. Subba Rao, r/o D.No. 1-11, Koppala Eluru, Eluru District, West^Godavari

¶38

Mr. C. Shankar Srikanth, aged 60 yrs S/o C.V.V.^Ramana 102, Saketh Paradise Kasavannahalli, Bangalore.

¶39

...Petitioners

¶40

AND

¶41

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Registrar, The Rayalaseema University, Administrative Office, Q3F6-I-362, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool^District- 518007.

¶42

The Vice Chancellor, The Rayalaseema University, Administrative Office, Q3F6-I-362, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool District-518007.

¶43

...Respondents

¶44

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

¶45

SRK, J W.P.No.28379 of 2025

¶46

2

¶47

action of the 2nd and 3rd 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 of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners^to complete the Ph.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment of the extension fee and to conduct DCMs and further stages of the course by providing one time opportunity to complete^their Course.

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioners: HARISH KUMAR RASINENI

¶49

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondents:NIMMAGADDA VIJAYA SANTHI

¶50

SRK, J W.P.No.28379 of 2025

¶51

3

¶52

.f

¶53

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶54

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

¶55

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief: “ to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2"*^ and 3 rd 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 of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners 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.”

¶56

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.

¶57

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

¶58

SRK, J 4 W.P.No.28379 of 2025 \

¶59

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.

¶60

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 Judge in W.P.No.28977 of 2023, since this Order,^which has been referred to in the subsequent Writ Petitions,^hasbeen relied on for granting relief in the subsequent Writ^Petitions.

¶61

Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 14.04.2024: 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 of the EC and 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 is that they have not paid the fees as they are not aware in view of the fact that the last date for payment of fees was uploaded only in the website. 12. In view of the fact that the respondent University has passed a resolution and thereafter issued various circulars for closure of the Ph.D. program before 30.04.2024, instead of going into merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate^to dispose of the present writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners by receiving the payment of the research fee duly condoning the delay as a one time opportunity to the petitioners, within a period of ten (10) days from^the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter.

¶62

SRK, J W.P.No.28379 of 2025

¶63

5

¶64

\

¶65

the petitioners may be allowed to complete their Ph.D. program in accordance with law.”

¶66

\

¶67

Having regard to these facts, there shall be a direction^to the Official Respondents to allow the Writ Petitioners to deposit the required fee within a period of ten (10) days in^termsofthe order passed by this Court dated 04.04.2024 in W.P.No.28977^of 2023 and also to permit the Writ Petitioners to submit^thePh.D Thesis. It is needless to state that the Official Respondents^shall adhere to the directions passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 04.04.2024.

¶68

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,^thisCourt had posed a query to the learned Standing Counsel appearing^for University as to within what time the University desires^thePh.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.

¶69

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

¶70

SRK, J W.P.No.28379 of 2025

¶71

6

¶72