Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46130 (AP)

G. Subramanyam v. Sri Venkateswara University,

WP/24383/2024 · 2025-09-22

K Sreenivasa Reddy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010473162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 24383/2024 Between: 1. G. SUBRAMANYAM, S/O THELAIAH, R/O. BANDLADODDI VILLAGE, KEERAMANDA POST, BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT , SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, A.P. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.20.12.2024 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2024. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents, particularly the 2nd Respondent (Controller of Examinations, Sri Venkateswara University), to permit the petitioner and his batchmates to appear for their backlog 2 examinations from the academic period 1981-82 to 1983-84, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court, to declare the action of the Respondents in excluding the petitioner and his batchmates from notification No. SVU/B-I(10)/UG-Yearly Pattern/Notification/2024 dated August 16, 2024, as arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional, being in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Respondents to take appropriate steps to issue an amended notification or circular including the petitioner and his batchmates from the academic period 1981-82 to 1983-84 in the list of candidates eligible to write backlog examinations, to award the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KRISHNAIAH CHEEDARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKAR ( SC FOR SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY The Court made the following: 3 Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents, particularly the 2nd Respondent (Controller of Examinations, Sri Venkateswara University), to permit the petitioner and his batchmates to appear for their backlog examinations from the academic period 1981-82 to 1983-84, within a time frame fixed by this Court and to declare the action of the Respondents in excluding the petitioner and his batchmates from notification No.SVU/B-I(10)/UG-Yearly Pattern/Notification/2024 dated August 16, 2024, as arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional, being in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to direct the Respondents to take appropriate steps to issue an amended notification or circular including the petitioner and his batchmates from the academic period 1981-82 to 1983- 84 in the list of candidates eligible to write backlog examinations and to award the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner”. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover, on earlier occasion, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On 04.09.2025, when there was no representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioner, the matter was listed on 09.09.2025 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. On 4 09.09.2025 and as well as today, there is no representation. It appears that the petitioner is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the case. 3. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:23.09.2025 ARB 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.24383 of 2024 Date: 23.09.2025 ARB