Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39233 (AP)

Y.Rajesh Yadav v. Sri Venkateswar University Tirupathi

WP/41018/2018 · 2025-06-26

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010851432018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 41018/2018 Between: Y.Rajesh Yadav ...PETITIONER AND Sri Venkateswar University, Tirupathi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V HIMABINDU 2. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKAR ( SC FOR SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 41018/2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 26.10.2018 of the first respondent appointing the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein as the Academic Consultants/coordinators for Department of Mathematics in pursuance to the selection made by the 2nd respondent and in terms of the orders of the 3rd respondent even though the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have not complied with the eligibility criteria fixed and further in violation of rule of reservation as specified under roaster points by the 1st respondent as being illegal and consequently set aside the impugned order in so far as respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are concerned by appointing the petitioner who fulfills the eligibility as required for academic Consultants/Coordinator in Department of Mathematics…” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no further orders are required in this matter and the petition may be disposed of since, the relief has become infructuous in this matter. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University is in attendance. 4. Recording the above said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed, since, the relief has become infructuous. No order as to Costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 27.06.2025 UPS 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.41018 of 2018 Dated.27.06.2025 UPS 13