APHC010217732016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 15047/2016 Between: 1. DR.RAGHU BABU KORRAPATI,, S/O. SRI SUBBA RAO, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O: FLAT NO.401, SEETA APARTMENTS, ORIENTAL BANK BUILDING, LAKSHMI NAGAR MEHEDIPATNAM, NEAR PILLAR NO.67, HYDERABAD-28. FOREIGN R/O: 403 RIVER CLUB ROAD, LEXINGTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29072, USA ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, AP SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS BUILDINGS, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. 3. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REP BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 6. PROF G BALASUBRAMANIAN HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, LINGUISTICS, DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 toIssue any writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the decision of the Executive Council of 72nd Meeting held on 26-02-2012 communicated under the proceedings No.DU/ LC/R/IMP/436/2016 dt.06-04-2016 resolving not to award D.Litt. to the petitioner with Regisstration No.DOLIT001/2008-09 Batch for his thesis "Computational Linguistics-Special Reference to Applications in Telugu Language using Interdisciplinary Meta Analysis Approach" in the faculty of Computations Linguistics and Computer Science as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21. of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to award D.Litt. by nullifying the subsequent valuations as illegal, malafide and without jurisdiction and to pass ; 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 18683 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date for final hearing of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 10625 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents 4 and 5 to award D.Litt. basing on the reports obtained by the earlier Vice-Chancellor, duly ignoring the later reports and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the respondent University to file counter Affidavit in the above Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A V S LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PASALA PONNA RAO SC FOR UGC 2. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 3. KOTESWARA RAO MUTHINENI (STANDING COUNSEL FOR DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY) 4. DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.15047 of 2016 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent University in passing the impugned proceedings dated 06.04.2016, whereby it was resolved not to award the D.Litt. Degree to the petitioner bearing Registration No.DOLIT001/2008-09. 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an NRI and has completed his Ph.D. in the U.S.A. Out of academic interest, the petitioner joined the D.Litt. programme of the respondent University for the academic year 2008-2009 as an NRI Scholar. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his thesis in the month of June, 2011 and was awaiting notification of the date for conducting the viva-voce examination, as the respondent University did not come forward to notify the date for conducting the viva-voce examination. The petitioner filed W.P.No.16194 of 2013, and this Court, by order dated 09.06.2014, directed the respondent University to take an appropriate decision on the thesis submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. 3. It is submitted that, pursuant to the orders passed in the earlier round of litigation, the impugned proceedings have now been passed by the respondents communicating their decision not to award the D.Litt. Degree to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has completed the course and submitted his thesis and that the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities for not considering the thesis submitted by the 4 petitioner do not withstand scrutiny on facts. It is further submitted that the respondent University, having admitted the petitioner as an NRI Scholar, did not raise any issue regarding the status of the petitioner as an NRI Scholar till the fag end of the course. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that a Committee was constituted pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and that the Committee had noted certain discrepancies which would disentitle the petitioner from being awarded the D.Litt. Degree. It is also observed that the Committee could not find proof of payment of fee for the two years. Thereafter, an Expert Committee, in its meeting held on 05.05.2015, recommended to the University that the matter be referred for re-adjudication by experts in the field of Computational Linguistics. 5. The counter filed by the respondent No.2 would also indicate that the Vice Chancellor would have to take an appropriate decision in the matter. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State also submits that the matter may be referred to the respondent No.4 for taking an appropriate decision. 6. The report submitted by the Committee constituted to examine the matters relating to D.Litt. admissions would have to be set aside, as the details regarding payment of fee, etc., ought to have been called for from the petitioner by the University. No effort appears to have been made by the Committee in this regard, and the queries raised ought to have been placed before the University or the petitioner for submission of the requisite 5 documents. The Committee has not undertaken such an exercise. As such, the unilateral recommendation not to award the D.Litt. Degree in Linguistics to the petitioner would have to be set aside. 7. Insofar as the recommendation of the Expert Committee to send the thesis of the petitioner for re-adjudication by experts in the field of Computational Linguistics for consideration of award of the D.Litt. Degree is concerned, the matter is left open to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No.5 to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. 8. Needless to mention, the Vice Chancellor shall take into consideration the fact that the petitioner has completed the course and submitted his thesis and has also approached this Court when there was a delay in conducting the viva-voce examination. All these aspects shall be kept in mind while passing appropriate orders on the application to be submitted by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks thereafter. 9. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date 16.09.2026 KGM Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 6 201 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.15047 of 2016 Dated 16.09.2026 KGM