Telangana High Court
Diddy Ramesh Babu vs Sri N. Sridhar on 5 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
CONTEMPT CASE No.1541 OF 2025
Dated :05.05.2026
Between:
Diddy Ramesh Babu
...Petitioner
AND
Sri N. Sridhar S/o Prabhakar, Aged 52 years,
Occ: IAS, Principal Secretary for Higher Education TE Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telanganaand 3 others.
...Respondents
ORDER
This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful violation,deliberate
disobedience, and intentional non-compliance with the direction of this
Court in W.P.No.7919 of 2023 dated 27.09.2023.
2. Vide order dated 27.09.2023 in W.P.No.7919 of 2023, this Court
had directed the respondents to consider and continue the petitioner in
service as a Contract Lecturer, if there is a vacancy, subject to the
verification report to be received from the University about his
certificates. It was also observed that the petitioner shall not claim any
TMD,J
CC_1541_2025
2
equity on the basis of the said order, as the same was passed to protect
the interest of the petitioner, if his certificates are said to be certified to
be genuine by the University.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed W.A.No.1120
of 2023 before the Division Bench of this Court, and vide order dated
30.01.2024, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the same.
Thereafter, a review application was also filed by the respondents before
the Division Bench, which was also dismissed vide order dated
24.01.2025. In spite of the same, the respondents did not continue the
petitioner in service, and therefore, the present contempt case has been
filed.
4. Respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit stating that, after
dismissal of the review petition, a proposal was submitted to respondent
No.1vide File No.CTE-EST2/SMSL/14/2023-ESTABLISHMENT-2-
CTE, dated 26.07.2025, for implementation of the orders of the Hon’ble
Single Judge of this Court, subject to verification of the genuineness of
the certificates and that orders from respondent No.1 in the matter are
awaited. It is further stated that a clarification petition has been filed to
clarify the order of the Hon’ble High Court in Review Petition I.A.No.1
of 2024 in W.A.No.1120 of 2023 and the same is pending.
TMD,J
CC_1541_2025
3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made
in the contempt petition and submitted that the respondents have
willfully violated the orders of this Court and are therefore liable for
punishment.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the
respondents have due respect for the orders of this Court and that, only
on account of the pendency of the writ appeal and the review therein, the
orders could not be complied with. He placed reliance upon the
judgment of the High Court of Sikkim in the case of Jyoti Agarwal v.
State of Sikkimand others in W.P.(C).No.56 of 2018, dated 16.08.2021,
wherein the validity of certificates issued by EIILM University was
considered and it was held that, except for three disciplines, i.e.,
B.A.(Hospitality & Tourism), BCA, and MBA, for students admitted
within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Sikkim based on the
admission records available with the University Sikkim Campus/State
Government, degrees in other disciplines beyond the academic year
2009-2010 shall not be valid. Therefore, according to learned Special
Government Pleader, the certificates produced by the petitioner for
academic year 2010-2011 are not valid. He further submitted that the
said judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the
TMD,J
CC_1541_2025
4
concerned Court and that the SLP filed there against has also been
dismissed.
7. To prove their bona fides,it is submitted that the respondents have
taken appropriate steps to comply with the directions of this Court,
subject to verification of the certificates. Learned Special Government
Pleader referred to the communication sent by respondent No.2 to
respondent No.1 on 26.07.2025.
8. The case was treated as heard on 21.11.2025 and was reserved for
orders.
9. Thereafter, the respondents have filed a memo dated 19.12.2025
enclosing therewith a letter dated 18.12.2025 received from the
University Grants Commission, in response to the e-mail of the
respondents dated 10.12.2025, clarifying that M.Sc.(Physics) from
EIILM University is not approved by UGC-DEB and that the year-wise
recognition status of universities approved to offer education through
distance mode, along with approved programmes, is already in public
domain and can be accessed at UGC website www.ugc.ac.in. It was
further stated that EIILM University has been dissolved by the State
Government videCabinet decision dated 28.04.2015,and that the
respondents were directed to approach the Secretary, Higher Education,
TMD,J
CC_1541_2025
5
Government of Sikkim,for any assistance or complaint,since it was State
private university. Also enclosed is a letter dated 09.09.2009 issued by
the Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open
University, in respect of EIILM University, Jorethang District, to
demonstrate that only B.A. (Hospitality &Tourism), BCA, and MBA
programmes were recommended for one year. Further, a letter dated
04.09.2013 issued by the UGC to the Vice-Chancellor, EIILM
University, warning the University against conducting courses outside its
campus and offering its programmers through franchising arrangements
with private coaching institutions or other private parties, even for the
purpose of conducting the courses through distance mode is enclosed.
Also enclosed therewith is the proceedings of respondent No.2, dated
Nil,rejecting the request of the petitioner for consideration of his
candidature for engaging as Contract Lecturer in Physics, holding that
the qualification of M.Sc.(Physics) obtained through distance mode from
EIILM University during the period from 2010-2011 cannot be treated as
valid in view of the communication of the UGC.
10. The matter was therefore re-listed for hearing.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
rejection order is undated and has been passed only for the purpose of
TMD,J
CC_1541_2025
6
evading the contempt proceedings. It is further submitted that, in spite of
the direction to continue the petitioner in service till the certificates are
verified, the respondents have not done so and therefore, contempt still
subsists.
12. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the direction to continue the petitioner in service till
the certificates are verified was issued on 27.09.2023, and the writ appeal
was dismissed on 30.01.2024, and the contempt case was filed on
30.04.2024. The review in the writ appeal was also dismissed on
24.01.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner has made several representations.
On the ground that the certificates of the petitioner were not verified, and
no communication has been received from EIILM University the order
of this Court was not complied with. Even if the certificates were
ultimately found to be invalid, the respondents ought to have complied
with the directions of the Court and, thereafter, after receipt of the
communication about the verification, taken appropriate action.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there has been non-
compliance with the directions of this Court. However, whether such
disobedience has been deliberate is to be seen. The respondents
appeared to have been waiting for confirmation from the University for
TMD,J
CC_1541_2025
7
complying with the directions. However, this was not the intent of the
order. The order was very clear that, pending verification, the petitioner
has to be continued in service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and another v. Hind Rubber Industries
Pvt. Ltd. 1 while considering similar situation has held as under:
“17. In Shiv Chander Kapoor v. Amar Bose, J.S.Verma, J.
speaking for a three-Judge Bench observed thus, with reference to
the statement of law at pp.351-53 of Wade’s Administrative Law
(6th Edn.): (SCC p. 247, para 23)“[V]oid’ is meaningless in an absolute sense; and
`unless the necessary proceeding are taken at law to
establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or
otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible
purpose as the most impeccable of orders’. In the words of
Lord Diplock, `the order would be presumed to be valid
unless the presumption was rebutted in competent legal
proceedings by a party entitled to sue’.”
18. To the same effect is the opinion of Jagannatha
Shetty, J. in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Gurdev Singh. (SCC p.6,
paras 7-9)
“If an Act is void or ultra vires it is enough for the
court to declare it so and it collapses automatically. It need
not be set aside. The aggrieved party can simply seek a
declaration that it is void and not binding upon him. A
1
(1997) 3 SCC 443
TMD,J
CC_1541_2025
8
declaration merely declares the existing state of affairs and
does no `quash’ so as to produce a new state of affairs.
But nonetheless the impugned dismissal order has at
least de facto operation unless and until it is declared to be
void or nullity by a competent body or court. In Smith v.
East Elloe Rural District Council, (AC at p.769: All ER at p.
871) Lord Radcliffe observed: `An order, even if not made
in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences.
It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead. Unless the
necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the
cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset,
it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the
most impeccable of orders.’
Apropos to this principle, Prof. Wade states: (See
Wade: Administrative Law, 6th edn., p.352)’ the principle
must be equally true even where the `brand’ of invalidity is
plainly visible; for there also the order can effectively be
resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the court.
Prof. Wade sums up these principles: (Ibid)
`The truth of the matter is that the court will
invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the
right person in the right proceedings and circumstances.
The order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the court may
refuse to quash it because of the plaintiff’s lack of standing,
because he does not deserve a discretionary remedy,
because he has waived his rights, or for some other legal
reason. In any such case, the `void’ order remains effective
and is, in reality, valid. It follows that an order may be void
TMD,J
CC_1541_2025
9
for one purpose and valid for another; and that it may be
void against one person but valid against another.”
19. We may also refer to yet another decision of this
Court in Ravi S.Naik v. Union of India (SCC atp. 662) S.C.
Agrawal, J., speaking for the Division Bench, observed: (SCC p.
662, para 40)
“In the absence of an authoritative pronouncement
by this Court the stay order passed by the High Court could
not be ignored by the Speaker on the view that his order
could not be a subject-matter of court proceedings and his
decision was final. It is settled law that an order, even
though interim in nature, is binding till it is set aside by a
competent court and it cannot be ignored on the ground that
the court which passed the order had no jurisdiction to pass
the same. Moreover the stay order was passed by the High
Court which is a superior Court of Record, ‘in the case of a
superior Court of Record, it is for the court to consider
whether any matter falls within its jurisdiction or not.
Unlike a court of limited jurisdiction, the superior Court in
entitled to determine for itself questions about its own
jurisdiction. (See: Special Reference No.1 of 1964;
(Keshav Singh, Re)6; (Mulraj v. Murti Raghonathji
Maharaj7)”
20. The Allahabad and Madras High Courts have also
taken the same view. In State of U.P. v. Ratan Shukla, the
Allahabad High Court observed:
“The fact that Shri S.M. Ifrahim had no jurisdiction
to hear the appeals, however, does not mean that no
TMD,J
CC_1541_2025
10contempt could be committed of him. So long as he was
seized of the appeals, no contempt could be committed of
him.
It is not the law that a court dealing with a matter
which is beyond its jurisdiction can be contemned with
impunity or that the liability of a person to be punished for
contempt of a court depends upon whether the court was
acting within its jurisdiction at the time when it is alleged to
have been contemned. The opposite party, therefore, cannot
claim that he is not guilty of contempt because Shri S.M.
Ifrahim had no jurisdiction to decide the appeals.”
21. In Nalla Senapati Sarkarai Mandariar Pallayakottai
v. Shri Ambal Mills Pvt. Ltd. similar view has been expressed –
without of course deciding the question finally. Quoting Oswald on
Contempt (1910 Edn. At p. 106), the Court observed: “An order
irregularly obtained cannot be treated as a nullity, but must be
implicitly obeyed, until by a proper application, it is discharged.”
22. In D.M. Samyulla v. Commissioner, Corporation of
the City of Bangalore & Ors., the Karnataka High Court stated the
law in the following terms, with reference to the decision of the
Court of Appeal in Hadkinson v. Hadkinson:
“The principle laid down in the said decision is, a
party who knows an order, whether it is null or valid,
regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it and it
would be dangerous to allow the party to decide as to
whether an order was null or valid or whether it was
regular or irregular”.
TMD,J
CC_1541_2025
11
13. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there has been
deliberate violation or non-compliance with the directions of this Court
by the respondents/contemnors 1 to 4 and each of the respondents are
liable for punishment of fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only)
under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and in
case of default, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
seven (07) days.
14. With the above observations, this Contempt Case is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand
dismissed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date:05.05.2026
PRN
