1 APHC010227052019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 541/2019 Between: 1. K. CHANDRAMOULI REDDY, S/O K.RAMI REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS WORK INSPECTOR, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. S. TIRUPAI REDDY,, S/O S. CHENGA REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, WORK INSPECTOR, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. P SRIDHAR REDDY, REGISTRAR-IN-CHARGE, ,SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. K AJOY BABU, UNIVERSITY ENGINEER, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. J S V PRASAD, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION (UE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT AND IN CHARGE VICE CHANCELLOR, SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI 2 4. PROF O MOHAMMOD HUSSAIN, S/O. NOT KNOWN, REGISTRAR, SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. V RAVINDRA REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN, UNIVERSITY ENGINEER, (IN-CHARGE) ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. J SYAMALA RAO IAS, S/O. NOT KNOWN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVAHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT RR 4 TO 6 IMPLEDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 05/01/2022. VIDE IA NO.2 OF 2022. IN CC NO.541 OF 2019. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K V RAGHU VEER 2. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER 3. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM 4. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) 5. RAMESH BABU TALLURI SC For S.V.UNIVERSITY,TIRUPATI The Court made the following: 3 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri V. Subramanyam, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1. 2. In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 12.11.2025, Sri P. Sreedhar Reddy (Respondent No.1) is present before the Court. Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No.1 has drawn the attention of this Court to the Order passed by the Registrar on 17.10.2019. During the course of hearing, on the last occasion, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the Order passed by this Court by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 10.07.2018, wherein the learned Single Judge, after having extracted para 53 of the Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi : (2006) 4 SCC 1, had submitted that the Order passed by the Registrar dated 17.10.2019 is not within the teeth of para 53 of the Umadevi’s case. At first blush, when this Court considered the said Order, this Court has also formed a prima facie opinion that the Registrar had not considered Umadevi’s case while issuing the Proceeding on 17.10.2019. 3. Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No.1, has now drawn the attention of this Court to para 3, wherein, the Registrar has referred to G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and also the manner in which the Petitioners are alleged to have been appointed and had held that the procedure by which the Petitioners were appointed is improper, lacking transparency and therefore, the ratio in Umadevi’s case would not be applicable to the facts in the present case. 4. In this view of the matter, this Court, having gone through the Proceeding dated 17.10.2019, is of the considered opinion that the Registrar has complied with the Order of this Court dated 10.07.2018 in W.P.No.10725 of 2001. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that there is no Contempt Case. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. It is clarified that the 4 Petitioners would always have the liberty to challenge the Proceedings passed by the Registrar dated 17.10.2019 and the subsequent Proceedings, if any, subject to all just exceptions. In view of the compliance, all the Respondents/Contemnors are discharged from this Contempt Case. No order as to costs. 5. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:19.11.2025 Vns