APHC010470282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 24070/2025 Between: 1. KAMALAKAR SREEVATSALA, , AGED 50 YRS, S/O. S. CHANDRA SEKHARAM, H.NO. 46-1-3K, SAPTHAGIRI NAGAR, NEAR A-CAMP, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED 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, KUMOOL DISTRICT-518007. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, Q3F6 PLUS 362, NANDYALA ROAD, PASUPULA, KUMOOL DISTRICT-518007. ...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, Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in not permitting the petitioner to complete the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D) Course purportedly on the grounds of non-payment of extension fee and Non completion of course 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 2 of the extension fee and to conduct DCMs and further stages of the course by providing one time opportunity to complete her Course. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. NIMMAGADDA VIJAYA SANTHI The Court made the following: 3 Order: Heard Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Ms. N. Vijaya Santhi, learned Standing Counsel for Rayalaseema University. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed 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 2nd and 3rd respondents in not permitting the petitioner to complete the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D) Course purportedly on the grounds of non-payment of extension fee and Non completion of course 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 of the extension fee and to conduct DCMs and further stages of the course by providing one time opportunity to complete her Course.” 3. 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 in W.P.No.13688 of 2024. 4. On verification of the Order passed by the learned Single judge in W.P.No.13688 of 2024 dated 12.08.2024, it appears that the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on an earlier Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 04.04.2024. 4 5. In this view of the matter this court is of the view that it would 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 to in the subsequent Writ Petitions, has been relied on for granting relief in the subsequent Writ Petitions. 6. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 14.04.2024: “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 research 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 that the last date for payment of 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 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.” 5 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 within a 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. 8. Further, in terms of the order passed by this Court, dated 09.05.2025 in W.P.No.13253 of 2025, this Court also deems it appropriate to direct the University to grant six months time to the Ph.D Scholars and the University is directed to accept the extension fee and permit the Scholars to submit their Ph.D Thesis. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:12.09.2025 ARB 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.24070 of 2025 Date:12.09.2025 ARB