← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/29004/2014disposed of no costs

A.J. Rajasekhar, S/O. A. Jayachandra Reddy v. Dravidian University,

2015-07-28A Ramalingeswara Rao3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.29004 of 2014 Between:

A.J.Rajasekhar.

....Petitioner and Dravidian University, Rep.by its Registrar, Srinivasavanam, Kuppam-517 425, Chittoor District, A.P., and others.

....Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28.07.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.29004 of 2014 ORDER:

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent.

The petitioner states that he has been working as a Lecturer in the Department of MCA in Sri Vidyaniketan, Institute o f Management, Tirupathi. Earlier he worked as Lecturer on contract basis for a period of five years from 23.07.2009 to 30.04.2014.

He passed APSET

examination in 2012. While so, the first respondent University issued a notification on 06.07.2014 inviting applications to M.Phil/Ph.D.

programmes, DURCET-2014, regular as well as part-time programme. The petitioner submitted application seeking admission to Ph.D part time course in the Department of Computer Science for the academic year 2014-2015. He submitted the application as per the revised regulations of 2012 framed by the first respondent University. When the name of the petitioner did not figure in the final list of candidates uploaded on 20.09.2014, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent stating that as per the orders of the Vice Chancellor dated 24.09.2014, the prepared merit list is to be revised and call letters have to be sent to the candidates for interview. The call letters, which were already sent to the candidates, were withdrawn. Thus, the schedule of admissions for Ph.D/M.

Phil for the academic year 2014-2015 were cancelled and the next schedule of the dates would be intimated in due course. This counter affidavit was filed on 11.12.2014 and a supplementary counter affidavit was later on filed stating that the petitioner did not attend the interview held on 01.12.2014 in spite of sending a call letter. The supplementary counter affidavit further states that the third respondent was admitted into Ph.D course in part-time mode based on revised second merit list in OC women category and not based on the first merit list which was withdrawn and cancelled by the University. It was also stated that the third respondent was qualified in DURCET-2014 and obtained the highest marks among woman candidates and accordingly she was admitted.

At the time of consideration of the Writ Petition, learned Counsel for the first respondent was asked to verify with regard to the number of seats unfilled for Ph.D course for the academic year 2014-2015 and he stated that two seats are vacant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he did not receive any call letter after cancellation of the

first merit list, which was uploaded on 20.09.2014. In view of the vacancy of the seats for Ph.D admission for the academic year 2014-2015, when this Court pointed out to the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent whether the petitioner can be called for interview for admission to the vacant seats, learned Standing Counsel said that the University has no objection to call the petitioner for interview, provided he fulfills the other requirements of admission. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to issue a fresh call letter to the petitioner for admission to Ph.D course for the academic year 2014-2015 and consider his case for admission, provided the petitioner fulfills all the requirements for admission to Ph.D course in part-time mode. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 28.07.2015 vs