Achanta.Shamith v. Mr.N. Srinivasa Rao

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.2611 OF 2017 O R D E R :

This contempt case is filed alleging violation of order dated 03-11-2017 passed in WP.MP.No.31236 of 2017 in WP.No.25199 of 2017, wherein this Court directed the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of seat in the 4th respondent-College, if any vacant seats are available in CSE group for the year 2017-28 or accommodate the petitioner in any of the trades available in the 4th respondent-College.

Counter affidavit is filed stating that case of the petitioner was considered and the order dated 25-11-2017 was passed. It is also stated that even if a seat in CSE branch is reserved in sports quota, but the petitioner could not be secured the seat in CSE branch at JNTU, Hyderabad as another candidate with better priority than that of the petitioner could had been allotted as she has also opted for CSE Branch i.e. Miss. K.Piyusha ,Hall ticket No.1606113 and Games priority No.50 and petitioner's priority No. 53. It is further stated that one seat is reserved for CIVIL Branch under Sports and Games quota. But the petitioner has not opted for CIVIL Branch. Considering the said aspects, the order dated 25-11-2017 was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that still seats are vacant. Hence, the petitioner can be transferred as per

Regulation 15.3 of Academic Regulations for B.Tech Regular Students with effect from the Academic Year 2016-17 issued by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that for transfer of candidates from one unit to other unit, the concerned University has to take action but not respondents 1 to 3.

It is to be seen that the as per directions of this Court, the respondents have considered and passed the orders dated 25-11-2017. The correctness or otherwise of the said order cannot be gone into in the contempt case. In view of the same, I do not see any violation of orders passed by this Court. Since the petitioner claims that his case can be considered under Regulation 15.3 of Academic Regulations, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Regulation 15.3 of Academic Regulations and it is for the competent authority to consider the same and take action accordingly.

Accordingly, the contempt case is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this case, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 15-02-2018 Nvl