Dismissed

G. Pradeep v. The Osmania University

Telangana HC10 Apr 2023WP/9491/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the university's refusal to extend thesis submission time without filing a written request. Court dismissed petition but granted liberty to make a written representation for the university to consider under UGC Regulations within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit written representation for extension; University to consider within eight weeks of receipt.

G. Pradeep Vs The Osmania University — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

I I I I I I I I I I i

¶3

l i i I l i

¶4

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

. MONDAY, THE TENTH DAYOFAPRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶8

wRtT PET|T|ON NO.9491 0F 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

G. Pradeep, s/o. Sri G.Kistaiah, Aged: 35 years, Occ: Student, R./o.H.No-9-28/1, Eshwar Mandir Street, Post and Mandal Utkoor, Narayanapeta District

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Osmania University, Rep- by its Registrar O.U. Campus, Hyderabad - 500 007

¶14

The University Grants Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi - 1 10 001

¶15

State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Anide 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring in not extending the time period for six months for submission of thesis for the Research scholars who joined in the year 2016 in tune with UGC Regulations and as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment and consequently direct the respondent university to consider and extend the time period for six months for submission of thesis of the Research Scholars, who have joined in 2016.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances sLated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent University to consider and extend the time period for six months for submission of thesis of the Research Scholars, who joined in 2016 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. S. LAXMI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI CH. JAGANNADHARAO, S.C. FOR OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/S. MEGHA RANI AGARWAL, S.C. FOR UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

I a I

¶26

HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.949L of 2o23

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶30

Sri Ch.Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No. 1 in not extending the six months period for submission of thesis for the Research scholars who joined in the year 2OL6 in tune with UGC Regulations as illegal. Petitioner joined in Ph.D (Telugu) in the year 2016 and he has to complete the said course and submit thesis on or before 31.12.2022 i.e., within six years period from the date of joining. He is seeking extension of time. However, he has not submitted any representation with respondent No.1 with a request to extend thb said time and without submitdng written representation qnd without request, he has filed present Writ Petition.

¶32

¶33

However, Sri Ch.Jagannadha Rao, leained Standing Counsei altpcaring for respondent No. 1 would submit that petitioner has to submit written representation to respondent No.1 with spccilic request to extend the said time period of six months for submission of thesis and on submission of the written representat ion, responclent No.1 will consider the same in accordance u,ith UGC Regulations and take action.

¶34

In view of the same, this Writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit written representation to respondent No.1 with a request to extend the time for submission of thesis by six months and on submission of the said written representation, respondent No. 1 shall consider the same and take action strictly in accordance with UGC Regulations. If, respondent No.l is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall assign specific reasons and pass a reasoned order and furnish copy of the same to the petitioner herein. He has to complete the entire *^{exercise withina period} of eight (og) weeks from the date

¶35

I rl

¶36

of receipt of said written representation fiom the

¶37

petltloner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if

¶39

any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH

ASSISTANT REGISTTAR

//TRUE COPY//

ry'

, SECTION OVFFICER

To,

The Registrar O.U. Campus, Osmania University, Hyderabad - 500 007

¶47

2- The Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi - 1 10 001

¶48

The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶49

One CC to SRI A. V. S. LAXMI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

One CC to SRI CH. JAGANNADHA RAO, S.C. for Osmania University loPUCl

¶51

One CC to M/s. MEGHA RANI AGARWAL, S.C. for University Grants Commission [OPUC]

¶52

Two CCs to GP for School Education, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

Two CD Copies

MP J

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010412023

..
Sr Ei,
d---
ORDER
st .l
a\ .,'WP.No.9491 of 2023

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

-<br>

G. Pradeep v. The Osmania University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Pradeep v. The Osmania University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yagnesh Srivenkat, Vs Union of India

M/s Thopudu Bandla Chiru Vyaparula Sangam Vs the State of Telangana and 7 Others

Sri Dudu David, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Nalgonda Diocese Society Vs Smt. Vallambatla Ramadevi

Shri. Gopal Agarwal Vs The Special Director

Bairu Nagaraju, Vs The Osmania University and 3 others