APHC010410442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PR AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGU^^^^^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 21351 OF 2Q2fi Between: S.Suneetha Rose, D/o. Late.S.Rathnam, Aged 56 years, H.No86/344-1A FCI- 2 colony. College, Kurnool-518 002. Meenakashi mineral water plant. Near Sai Krishna Degree ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, of Higher Education, Guntur District 2. The Registrar, The Rayalaseema University, Q3F6 plus 362, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, 3. The Vice-Chancellor, The Rayalaseema University, Office, Q3F6 + 362, Nandyala Road, Pasupula 007. Administrative Office, Kurnool District- 518 007. Administrative Kurnool District- 518 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 may be one in nature of and 3'^'^ respondents in not complete the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D.) nd permitting the petitioner to Course in English Literature 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 her Ph.D. Course condoning the delay for payment of fee and by providing one time opportunity on par with others to complete her Ph.D. in English Literature. by lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC 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^^ and 3'^'^ Respondents to permit the Petitioner to complete the Ph.D. course by condoning the delay for payment of fee by providing one time opportunity to complete their respective courses. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. BALASWAMI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3:M/s. NIMMAGADDA VIJAYA SANTHI, SC FOR RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY The Court made the following order: APHC010410442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGH™ DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 21351/2025 [3327] THE Between: 1.S.SUNEETHA YEARS, ' MINERAL WATER PLANT COLLEGE, KURNOOL-518 002. AGED 56 Rnqp D/0 LATE.S.RATHNAM ROSE’ 2 COLONY, MEENAKASHI NEAR SAI KRISHNA DEGREE H.N086/344-1A, FCI- ...PETITIONER AND . ST.,. OF ^EPART^^'-'^'^^LAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, GUNTUR DISTRICT "rDMlSrE%F;^\ Q3Fa PLUS 362 ■ —^a^ndyaTS^paIu^^l^" “kLUo! DISTRICT- 518 007. rayalaseema university, NANDYALA 362, ...RESPONDENT(S); completrthe Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D.) Course in Engl sh "e"sion7e°^tSoTho^'s« oTScSesis in time SWK, J W.P.No.21351 of 2025 2 SS4siaSl \A NO: 1 OF 2071^ 2SrSSSS““-»= Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.T BALASWAMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. NIMMAGADDA VIJAYA SANTHI The Court made the following: rv-'-'-'-'' SRK, J W.P No.21351 of 2025 3 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not permitting the petitioner to complete the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D) course in English Literature on the grounds of non-payment of course fee/extension fee and/or non submission of DCMS/Thesis in time, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete her Ph.D course in English Literature by condoning the delay in payment of fee and by providing one time opportunity on par with others to complete the said course. When the matter has come up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner would submit that relief sought for, in the present Writ Petition and the relief sought by the Writ Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.28977 of 2023, 25891 of 2024 and 837 of 2025 are one and the same and the present matter is 2. squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in the said Writ Petitions and the same and thereby, prays the Court to pass similar order in this Writ Petition also. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Standing on behalf of 3. appearing on Counsel for the Rayalaseema University appearing SRK, J WP.No.21351 of 2025 4 respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not refute the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Writ learned Government Pleader for Higher Education behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Rayalaseema University, Kurnool respondent Nos.2 and 3. submission made by the Petitioner and appearing on Standing Counsel for the appearing on behalf of 5. A perusal of the Order, dated 04.04.2024 this Court in Writ Petition No.28977 passed by of 2023 and also the Orders dated 14.11,2024 & 10.01.2025 in Writ Petition Nos.25891 of 2024 and 837 of 2025, respectively, go to show that in similar respondents therein to circumstances, this Court directed the consider the case of the petitioners therein by receiving the payment of the research fee duly condoning the delay time opportunity to the petitioners therein, as a one by granting considerable be allowed to complete time and thereafter, the petitioners therein their Ph.D program in accordance with law. 6. Therefore, having regard to the facts terms of the Order, dated 04.04.2024 Petition No.28977 of 2023 and for the respondents are hereby directed of the case and in passed by this Court in Writ the reasons recorded therein, to consider the case of the SRK, J W.P.No.21351 of 2025 5 petitioner by receiving the payment of research fee duly condoning the dsiay as a one time opportunity to the petitioner within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and thereafter, the petitioner be allowed to complete her Ph.D program in accordance with law. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed 7. of. There shall be no order as to costs. Office is directed to enclose a copy of the Order, dated 8. 04.04.2024 in Writ Petition No.28977 of 2023 to this Order. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if 9. any, shall also stand closed. .0 sect(^ officer //TRUE COPY// To, Department of Higher Education, State of Velagapudi, Amaravati, 1. The Principal Secretary, Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings Guntur District 2. 2. The Registrar, The Rayalaseema University, Administrative Office, Q3F6 plus 362, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool District-518 007. 3. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, The Rayalaseema University, Administrative Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool District- Office, Q3F6 plus 362 518 007. 4. One CC to Sri T. Balaswami, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s. Nimmagadda Vijaya Santhi, SC for Rayalaseema University [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Higher Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. (Along with a copy of the order, dated 04.04.2024 in W.P. No.28977 of 2023 to this order) ssb -a HIGH COURT DATED;28/08/2025 ORDER WP No. 21351 OF 2025 0 ii SEP 2025 P O Co Sectiopx^y disposing of the w.p. WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA APHC010548072023 PRADESH ( [3333] AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28977/2023 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Nishant Khatton and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.S.V.S.S.SIVARAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2.Y RATNA PRABHA (SC FOR RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY) 3.Y RATNA PRABHA (SC FOR RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: ...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^^ and 3^.^ respondents in not permitting the petitioners to complete the Doctorate in Philosophy (PhD) Course purportedly 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 petitioners to complete Ph.D Course by condoning the delay for payment fee and by providing one time opportunity to complete their respective Courses and such ” on pass All the petitioners herein are part-time research scholars pursuing their respective Ph.D. Courses in the 2. respondent university and are actively engaged in research with 12 to 30 years of unblemished experience in postgraduate and/or undergraduate teaching and/or research at State Level/National level, public and private institutions in their respective fields. The petitioners herein have joined in the respondent university in the academic years 2009 and 2010, with a hope to accomplish their respective Ph.D. Degree’s by the Academic years 2015 or 2017 as 3 the minimum period for completion of the course is 4 years and maximum being 6 years. But, the respondent university has not started research process till the academic year 2010-11 and soon as the research process has started, the respondent university has halted the process from the academic years 2011- 12 to 2014-15, without any prior notice to any of the research scholars and had declared academic holidays to the university. ✓ as 3. After four years i.e. in the academic year 2015-16,the respondent university has resumed the research process, but, the resumption was not relayed to the research scholars and the respondent university was negligent in conducting DCM’s and notifying the same to the research scholars. The case of the petitioners is that in a span of 10 years, the petitioners were afforded only 5 years for research in their respective fields. Due to Covid-19 pandemic prevailing in the month of March, 2019, the UGC issued guidelines in the month of April, 2020 leaving it open to the universities to allow the Ph.D. Scholars for conducting research or not and further recommended extension of six months for those students, whose maximum period for submission of thesis is expired during the pandemic period including pending formalities. Though other universities continued research process through online mode even during the pandemic period, the respondent university halted the entire 4 process on account of some internal research irregularities and remained dysfunctional from March, 2019 to March, 2023. As such, the petitioners were deprived of the opportunities such as submission of thesis in time and payment of time. requisite fees in 4. The further case of the petitioners is that though the respondent university has reinitiated the Ph.D. has conducted viva programme and voce to the candidates who have submitted their thesis in 2019, the respondent authorities informed the petitioners that have orally further steps would be taken in their respective cases for completion of Ph.D. and for no submission of doctoral thesis, on the ground of non-payment of requisite fee and non-submission of doctoral thesis in time. The petitioners further submit that the University Grants Commission has neither prescribed any minimum or maximum time limit within which a student has to complete the course or to submit the thesis after appearing for the examination, nor has laid down any minimum period required for but, it is for the own statutes, rules and regulations in this regard. The respondent university present case, without considering the factored ought to be considered in favour of the petitioners. guidelines to determine the submission of thesis after research work, university concerned to frame their , in the conditions that such as 5 ft? ‘disrupted academic and research activities, pandemic conditions complexity of research topic, scarceness of research material technicalities beyond the control of the petitioners, negligence and mass-miscommunication, delay and laches on the part of the respondents’, is not allowing the petitioners to submit doctoral thesis and to attend viva voce, but are threatening the petitioners of cancellation of admission orally. Though all the petitioners are ready and willing to pay all the requisite fee for condonation of delay, if any, and are ready to submit their respective doctoral thesis except the 21st petitioner, in whose case extension of time is required, the respondents are not permitting the petitioners for completing the Ph.D. Course. As stated in the affidavit, the respondent university has issued a circular wherein it is stated that the final spell of pre-talk presentation would be conducted in the third week of October, 2023 and has informed that the research scholars whose research admissions have been ratified in Phase-III, who has paid all the requisite fee and who has completed DCM IMI as eligible for final spell of pre-talk presentation; and the part-time & extramural research programmes will be closed by 30.04.2024. The grievance of the petitioners is that though there were no division of phases made at the time of admission, the respondent had introduced division of phases in 2019 arbitrarily. The further 5. 6 & case of the petitioners is that upon re-initiation of the process by the respondent university, all the petitioners herein have approached the university seeking redressal and requested the authorities to permit them to complete the course, but, none of the respondent authorities have responded, though they aware of the fact that the matter falls purely under the jurisdiction of the university and can extend the same by providing one last opportunity for the petitioner for completion of their respective doctoral thesis on par with the other universities. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to complete the Ph.D. Course by condoning the delay for payment of fee and by providing one time opportunity to complete their respective courses, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. are 6. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioners and further stated that though the research admissions were made during the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the programme continued up to June, 2011, the same was in hibernation from was July, 2011 to June, 2015 without any academic and administrative activity. It is further stated that after resuming the research program, the University issued circulars through its website from time to time indicating the procedure to be followed. .1^ 7 to be attended along fee to be paid, examinations and reviews with the minimum and maximum period for the completion of the the the said circulars updated in and based on website only, all the research scholars were program admitted University along with the petitioners in the research programme and they the present level. As such, the allegation of have completed up to miscommunication and major negligence on the part of the mass University is baseless and continued research process up far from truth. The University to February, 2020 and the same 2020 due to some stopped after February followed by the lockdowns imposed by the has been has been administrative reasons the pandemic and the same Government due to April, 2023 and the option for the payment of the closed by resumed in research fee, extension fee along with late fee is followed all the required have not 30.11.2019. The petitioners formalities within due time. It is further stated in the counter that basing on the and approvals of the the research 7. resolutions of the various committees Executive Committee, the university is continuing and irrespective of the reasons, the resolutions of the EC only. program in the present manner the University has to confine to been notifying the research July, 2009, the UGC has From guidelines from time to time and suggested various procedures iin 8 awarding research degrees to the Universities in the country. As such, the University cannot continue the research program designed more than a decade back; hence, the EC has instructed the University to close the research program after completing the pending formalities/procedures for the research scholars whose research admissions were in live as of now and to complete the process before 30.04.2024. As the admissions of the petitioners are not in live or as they did not complete the required formalities within the stipulated time, the University is unable to accept the request of the petitioners for the continuation of their research. 8. The part-time/ extramural research programme of the University is reinitiated with the resolution of the EC meeting and the same has been notified through a circular on 11.04.2023 through University website and is continuing the process. As such, various circulars have been issued from time to time for the smooth closure of the program within the stipulated date i.e. 30.04.2024 as per the resolution of the EC. As the admissions of the petitioners are not in live as per the norms of the University, their requests cannot be considered and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned 9. Government Pleader for Higher Education and learned Standing Counsel for Rayalaseema University. 9 it is evident that though the 10. From the above petitioners have joined in the respondent university during the academic year 2009 and 2010, the petitioners were afforded only 5 years for research in their respeetive fields, for one reason or the other. The petitioners were deprived of the opportunities such submission of thesis and payment of requisite fees in time, as as the respondent university has halted the entire process internal research irregularities and remained on account of some dysfunctional from March, 2019 to March, 2023. Nowhere the University Grants Commission has prescribed the minimum time limit within which a student has to complete the or maximum for the submit the thesis after appearing course or to examination, but, it is for the respondent university to frame their also of the own statutes, rules and regulations. This Court is willing to pay requisite fee opinion that though the petitioners condonation of delay and without considering the conditions are for disrupted academic and research activities, pandemic of research such as conditions, complexity of research topic, scarceness material, technicalities beyond the control of the petitioners. negligence and mass-miscommunication, the respondents cannot reject the petitioners admission on the ground that they have directed by the failed to pay the requisite research fee in time as respondents. 10 11. It is also evident from the material available record that basing on the resolutions of the various committees on and approvals of the Executive Committee, the University is continuing the research program and is confined to the resolutions of the EC and the EC has instructed the University close the research to program after completing the pending formalities for the research scholars whose research admissions 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 that the last date for payment of fees was uploaded only in the website. were 12. In view of the fact that the respondent University has passed a resolution and thereafter issued various circulars 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 of ten (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. 11 Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. y- As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall also stand closed. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA GSS Date:04.04.2024.