IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY j TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 11722 OF 2025 Between: Putiuru Bayapu Reddy, s/0 Pakkira Reddy, aged 60, Occ: Lecturer in Physics, Government Degree College Kadapa, R/0. 1/1241-3, Y.M. Palli, Near C.P. Brown Library, Kadapa. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of High Education, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. Thr Rayalaseema University, Rep, by its Registrar, Administrative Office, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool, 3. The Rayalaseema University, Rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Administrative Office, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool. ...RESPONDENTS 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 2^'^ & 3'^' respondents in not to accepting the submission of thesis by petitioner by condoning the delay of submission of the Thesis and for further process to award the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D) Course purportedly on the Non submitting Thesis in time as- wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Principals of Natural Justice besides being violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India coftsequently direct the respondents to accept the Thesis submitted petitidrier forthwith by condoning the delay of submission of the Thesis and for further'process to award the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D) degree by providing one time opportunity to complete his and by course. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to permit the petitioner complete the Ph.D Course by condoning the delay in submission of Ph.D thesis by providing one time opportunity to complete his respective Course pending disposal of the above writ petition. to Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BASHEER AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondents No.2, 3: N VIJAYASHANTHI, Standing Counsel for Rayalaseema University The Court made the following: OFtDER 7 1 , 4 APHC010232442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AM ARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) / [3328] FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 11722/2025 Between: 1. PUTLURU BAYAPU REDDY. SON OF PAKKIRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION LECTURER IN PHYSICS, GOVERNMENT DEGREE COLLEGE KADAPA, A RESIDENT OF # 1/1241-3, YM. PALLI, NEAR C.P. BROWN LIBRARY, KADAPA.. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, NANDYALAROAD, PASUPULA,KURNOOL- 518007. 3. THE RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, NANDYALA ROAD. PASUPULA. KURNOOL 518007. ■ ..RESPONDENTS ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.BASHEER AHMED Counsel for the Respondent: I GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORAL OROFR. Heard Sri Basheer Ahmed, Smt. N. Vijaya Shanthi, University. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner Learned Standing Counsel and for Rayalaseema 2- The present Writ Petition i IS filed seeking following relief; ofM P/eased to the delay of submission of the Thesis andfnrfnh'^^^'^ condoning the Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph D) P''ocess submitting Thesis in time aswholl^eaal^t^^^^^ Principles of Natural Justice besiL^ h ’ contrary to 21 of Constitution of India an/c^ ^^d accept the Thesis submitted bv oetiflnna r respondents to delay of submission of the Thesis and condoning the Doctorate in Philosophy (PhD) dearer Ihe °PP°'^^nity to complete his Course and Prav/d/ng one time orders as this Hon’ble Court mav be de circumstances of the case.” ^ ^ ^ proper in the to award 3- Learned Counsel for Order passed by the learned 2024 dated 12.08.2024 the Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the in W.P.No. 13688 of passed by the dated 12.08.2024, it appears Single Judge of this Court (Ex.P.8), On verification learned Single judge in W.P.No.13688 of 2024 Of the Order 3 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 (Ex.P.7). 4. 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. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of 5. the learned Single Judge’s Order in W.P.No.28977 of 2023 dated 04.04.2024: “4. The further case of the petitioners is that though the respondent university has reinitiated the Ph.D. programme and has conducted viva voce to the candidates who have submitted their thesis in 2019, the respondent authorities have oraiiy informed the petitioners that no further steps would be taken in their respective cases for completion of Ph.D. and for 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 guidelines to determine the minimum period required for submission of thesis after research work, but, it is for the university concerned to frame their own statutes, rules and regulations in this regard. The respondent university, in the present case, without considering the factored conditions that ought to be considered in favour of the petitioners, such as 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 4 fee for condonation of delay, if any, and are ready to submit their respective doctoral thesis except the 2P< petitioner, in whose case extension of time is required, the respondents are not permitting the petitioners for completing the Ph.D. Course, (emphasis supplied) 5. 6 7. 8. 9 10 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 w/as 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 often (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.” 6. 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 submit thesis within a period of 5 six (6) months thereafter. 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. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands 7. allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Sd/- V SAVITRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C^^S'O^CER //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of High Education, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Registrar, Rayalaseema University, Administrative Office, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool, 3. The Vice Chancellor, Rayalaseema University, Administrative Office, Nandyala Road, Pasupula, Kurnool. 4. One CC to SRI BASHEERAHMED Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. One CC to M/S. N. VIJAYASHANTHI, Standing Counsel for Rayalseema University [OPUC] \ 7. Three C.D. Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.11722of2025 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS