APHC010151272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7723/2025 Between: Prof. Chinthala Paramageetham ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKAR ( SC FOR SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned circular, vide No.UGC-1(4)/CASH/2024, dated 15.03.2025, directing the petitioner to attend the meeting of CASH Committee on 29. 03.2025 without providing the copy of the written complaint as mandated under the Regulation No.8 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2015, as unjust, arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution besides 2 being violative of sacred principles of natural Justice and consequently, set aside all subsequent action of the respondent No.2 in calling the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 29.03.2025 without following procedure established by the law in Regulation No.8 of the University Grant Commission Regulation, 2015 and to pass….” 2. Grievance of petitioner is that without providing copy of the complaint, the respondents have called upon her to attend Cash Committee meeting scheduled to be held on 29.03.2025. In terms of Regulation 8 of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015, (for short, “the Regulations, 2015”), it is mandatory that unless petitioner is supplied copy of the complaint, she cannot be called upon to participate in the proposed enquiry. 3. Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel for Sri Venkateswara University of Sciences, appearing for respondents 2 to 4, placed on record written instructions and submits that the meeting, which is scheduled on 29.03.2025, is only for the purpose of supplying the complaint that is received by the University to the petitioner enabling her to submit appropriate defence and it is also stated that without conducting full-fledged enquiry, no adverse orders would be passed. 3 4. The short grievance being is that the petitioner without being supplied the copy of the complaint, on which the proposed enquiry is sought to be conducted, respondents are proceeding with the enquiry and in view of written instructions coupled with submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents – University, the respondents are directed to supply the copy of the complaint and any other documents basing on which the proposed enquiry is being conducted on the scheduled meeting on 29.03.2025, to the petitioner, thereafter, petitioner be given sufficient time to submit statement of defence and proceed with the enquiry in terms of the Regulations, 2015. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:27.03.2025. cs