Disposed

Y.Adithya, v. Acharya Nagarjuna University, Rep. by its Registrar

Telangana HC5 Oct 2012WP/31096/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal to extend revised university regulations to earlier batch students. The court directed the university to take a decision expeditiously before scheduled examinations and to consider special supplementary exams if revised rules are applied.

What did the court decide?

The University was directed to take a decision on extending revised regulations before the scheduled examinations and to consider holding special supplementary exams.

Y.Adithya, Vs Acharya Nagarjuna University, Rep… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31096 of 2012

¶3

Dated 05.10.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Y.Adithya and others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

Acharya Nagarjuna University

¶9

…Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, for Sri D.Anil Kumar

¶11

Counsel for respondent: Sri Srinivas Mantha,

¶12

standing counsel for University

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not extending the revised regulations issued for 2011-12 batch to the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary.

¶16

At the hearing, Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel representing Sri D.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that while ordinarily the rule is that the regulations in force at the time of the student joining the university govern him till completion of his course, since the revised regulations are beneficial to the students, there is no reason why the said regulations shall not be made applicable to the students who have joined earlier.

¶17

Sri Srinivas Mantha, learned standing counsel for the respondent, submitted that according to his information, the respondent is considering the request of the college concerned and the students for extending the revised regulations issued by the respondent in respect of 2011-12 batch, to the students, who have joined the courses during the previous years. Since the examinations are scheduled to commence from today, the respondent is directed to take the decision as expeditiously as possible. In the event the university chooses to extend the said revised regulations to the petitioners and other similarly situated students, it may consider holding special supplementary examinations for them.

¶18

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶19

As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.39649 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶21

05^th October, 2012 GHN

Y.Adithya, v. Acharya Nagarjuna University, Rep. by its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Adithya, v. Acharya Nagarjuna University, Rep. by its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Narsing Rao Vs Khaja Shaik Ruknuddin Mohammed Farooq Chisti

Ameer Shareef Vs Mohd.Basith Ali

Sri.Yerni Satyanarayana, Vs Smt.Yerni Padmavathi

Roza-e-Hazrath Shazada Vali Vs The Chairman

Lankireddy Venkata Rami Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector

Sasi and Swatika Reddy Educational and Development Society, Vs National Council for Teacher Education