Disposed

Koduri Goutham Chandra v. The Rajeev Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies

Telangana HC3 Sept 2014WP/16304/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging university admission rules were disposed of on the basis of a prior Division Bench order declaring a statutory provision void. The High Court protected admissions made under interim Supreme Court orders, directing the university to continue the petitioners in their courses and allow them to attend examinations.

What did the court decide?

Direction to continue petitioners in their respective courses, allow them to attend examinations, and issue certificates if they are otherwise qualified.

Koduri Goutham Chandra Vs The Rajeev Gandhi… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.16277, 16282 and 16304 of 2010

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

These three Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order in view of the common attack made in the Writ Petitions.

¶5

These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Provisional Admission Rules as contrary to Statute-13 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Act, 2008, and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974.

¶6

Some Writ Petitions were filed challenging statute 13(3) of the Schedule to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Act as violative of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India read with the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974. The said issue was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Mudavathu Nagaraju v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.16657 of 2010), and the said Writ Petition was allowed on 26.10.2010 by holding Statute 13(3) as void ab initio as being contrary to Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that against the said order the Dean, Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2656 of 2011, and the same is pending before the Supreme Court. However, by way of an interim order, the Supreme Court protected the admissions made prior to the said order.

¶7

Though, this Court, on 14.08.2014 directed the Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, to submit the latest position of the cases, today when the case is called, no affidavit is filed by the Registrar.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were admitted by virtue of the interim orders and they have been pursuing the courses for the last four years.

¶9

In view of the declaration of Statute 13(3), framed under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Act, as illegal by the Division Bench of this Court, and in view of the continuance of studies by the petitioners for the last four years, it is not necessary for this Court, for disposal of these Writ Petitions, to examine the various issues raised in the Writ Petitions, and it is sufficient if the admissions of the petitioners are protected.

¶10

Accordingly, without giving a finding on the various issues raised in the Writ Petitions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to continue the petitioners in their respective courses and allow them to attend the examinations and issue the certificates, provided they are otherwise qualified in the examinations. The miscellaneous petitions pending in these Writ Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 03.09.2014. vs

Koduri Goutham Chandra v. The Rajeev Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koduri Goutham Chandra v. The Rajeev Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies

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

M/s United Steel Allied Industries (P) Ltd, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Dhanraj Singh, Vs Mr.Somesh Kumar

P.v.Varaprasad, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Kurnool

Peddinti Sangeetha Sravanthi Vs The Rajeev Gandhi University of Knowledge

Kondamagundla Lenin Kumari, Vs The Piduguralla Nagarpanchayat

C. Shravani Vs The Rajeev Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies