[3328 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 12555 OF 2025 Between: Chavali. S.U. Ravi Kumar, S/b: Venkata Rao, Aged about 47 years, R/o. Plot No 113, VRR Enclave, Dammaiguda, Nagaram, Medchal- Malkajgiri, Telengana State ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Velagapudi,,Amarava ti, Guntur District. 2. The Registrar, The Rayalaseema University, Administrative Office, Q3F6 plus 362, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool District-518007. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, The Rayalaseema University, Administrative Office, Q3F6 plus 362, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool District- 518007. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 pn4 in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 / ^'Respondents in not permitting the petitioner to complete the Doctorate in I - • .?• Jt: : •Philosophy (Ph.D) Course purportedly on the grounds of non-payment of vCQUfse fee/extension fee and/or non-submission of DCMS/Thesis 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 petitioner to complete the Ph^.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment fee and by providing one time opportunity to complete his respective Course. nd rd & 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2"^^ & 3'^'^ respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the Ph.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment fee for by providing one time opportunity to complete his respective Course. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAHESWARI ARIKA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondents No.2, 3: MS.NIMMAGADDA VIJAYASANTHI, SC FOR RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY The Court made the following: 1 APHC010249312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) (3328] WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 12555/2025 Between: 1.CHAVAL1. S.U. RAVI KUMAR,, S/0. VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/0. PLOT NO 113, VRR. ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, NAGARAM, MEDCHAL- MALKAJGIRl, TELENGANASTATE ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI„AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REGISTRAR, THE RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, Q3F6 PLUS 362, NANDYALA ROAD, PASUPULA, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518007. 3.THE VICECHANCELLOR, THE RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, Q3F6 PLUS 362, NANDYALA ROAD, PASUPULA, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518007. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.MAHESWARI ARIKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. Maheswari Arika, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner Ms. N. Vijaya Santhi, learned Standing Counsel for Rayalaseema University. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief: and 2. issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the and 3" Respondents in not permitting the petitioner to complete the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D) Course purportedly on the grounds of non-payment of course fee/extension fee and/or non-submission of DCMS/Thesis 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 petitioner to complete the Ph.D Course by condoning the delay for payment fee and by providing one time opportunity to complete his respective Course and to pass such...” 3. Ms. Ms. 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 iin W.P.No.13688 of 2024. 4. On verification of the Order passed by the learned Single W.P.No.13688 of 2024 dated 12.08.2024, it appears that the learned Single Judge has placed reliance W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 04.04.2024. 5. In this view of the matter this Court is of the view that it wouid 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 judge in an earlier Order passed by this Court in on to in the subsequent Writ Petitions, has been relied on for granting relief in the subsequent Writ Petitions. - '.iff.-- 6. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 04.04.2024; portion of 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 ''^s^arch 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 mat the last date for paymentj)f 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 circuiars 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 often (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the petitioners may be allowed to complete their Ph.D. program in accordance with law.” 7. Having regard to these facts, there shall be a direction to the Official Respondents to allow the Writ Petitioner to deposit the required fee period of ten (10) days in terms of the Order passed by this Court dated 04.04.2024 in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 and also to permit the Writ Petitioner to submit the Ph.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. within a \ 8. It is noticed that several Writ Petitions have earlier been filed seeking similar reliefs. However, the University has not proposed to grant any specific 4 time for the submission of the Ph.D Thesis. Today, when this matter was called-up, this Court had posed a query to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for University as to within what time the University desires the Ph.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. 9. Having considered this request, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the University to grant six months’ time to the Ph.D Scholars not only in the present Writ Petition but also in the Writ Petitions which were previously disposed of, where this Court had directed the University to accept the extension fee and permitted the Scholars to submit their Ph.D Thesis. 10. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// rc SECTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to SRI MAHESWARI ARIKA Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to MS.NIMMAGADDA VIJAYASANTHI, SC FOR RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies gsg HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER 19 JUN 2025 ^ . Current aeciion . X WP.No.12555 Of 2025 a o», THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS