Dr.C.Murali Krishna v. The Dravidian University,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.1324 of 2011 DATED : 20.07.2016 Between:

Dr.C.Murali Krishna, S/o.C.Seetha Ramaiah, Aged 47 yrs, Occu : Dy.Director (On deputation), SDCE, Dravidian University, Kuppam, Permanently working as Associate Professor in Potti Sree Ramulu Telugu University, Nampally, Hyderabad.

.. Petitioner AND The Dravidian University, Rep., by its Registrar, Srinivasavanam, Kuppam, Chittoor District & another.

.. Respondents

The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.1324 of 2011 ORDER:

Petitioner was an employee of Telugu University. He came on deputation to Dravidian University in the year 2008 in the capacity as Deputy Director. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent was appointed as Associate Professor on temporary basis and simultaneously he was also appointed as Deputy Director-II which is equivalent to the post held by the petitioner and was assigned higher duties and responsibilities. According to the petitioner such proceedings were illegally made as there was no approval of Executive Council. According to the petitioner a Two Man Committee submitted its report making serious allegations against the 2nd respondent with regard to admissions to Ph.D course, and it is illegal to confer such higher responsibilities to a person who has committed such grave illegalities.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the gravity of the allegations made against the 2nd respondent, the Government has now entrusted the issue of illegal admissions to Ph.D courses to CBCID and the matter is under investigation which statement is seconded by learned Standing counsel representing the respondent-University.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner reverted to his parent university and therefore his grievance with reference to

assignments granted to the 2nd respondent would not survive any more.

4. Though the prayer sought by the petitioner is more comprehensive, on account of the fact that CBCID enquiry is also initiated, no cause survives even on the second limb of the prayer.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is needless to observe that dismissal of the writ petition does not come in the way of conducting CBCID enquiry as already ordered. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J 20th July, 2016 Rds