Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Dr.Talasila.Sri Lakshmi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 April, 2026
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
1
APHC010238792025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3208]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 12179/2025
Between:
1. DR.TALASILA.SRI LAKSHMI,, D/O BASWA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS,
OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS,
GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE)
UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPATNAM R/O. D.NO.101, SREESAI
RESIDENCY, BEHIND HONDA SERVICING CENTER, KOMMADI,
VISAKHAPATNAM - 530048.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
2
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GUAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GUAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GUAM CAMPUS, GANDHI
NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH -
530045.
...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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the
nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No DU/CAO/HR/GSS/
Relieving/966/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th Respondent herein
relieving the petitioner from her services as Assistant Professor in the
Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing
a two devised systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty
Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP) even
though the petitioner had above IGyears service and have good feedback and
credentials without following established procedures and contrary to the
procedure contemplated under University Grants Commission Act 1986 UGC
and rules and regulations made there under and under the provisions of
A.P.Education Act declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and particularly
violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently set aside the same duly continuing the services of the petitioner
with all consequential benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and
Rules and Regulations made there under and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/966/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5**^
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from her services as Assistant
Professor in the 6*^ Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
3
pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.05.2025 in the above writ petition
no. 12179 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 12245/2025
Between:
1. DR. CH. GANESWAA RAO,, S/O R. CHANDRA RAO, AGED 42 YEARS,
OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, GITAM
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES,
VISAKHAPATNAM CAMPUS, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE) UNIVERSITY,
VISAKHAPATNAM R/O. FLAT NO.65-6-238, MULAGADA HOUSING
COLONY, OPPOSITE ANJANEYA TEMPLE, GAJUWAKA DEPOT,
GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530026.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU VIJAYAWADA,
4
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, GUAM SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND
SOCIAL SCIENCES, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM
CAMPUS, GUAM (DEEMED TO BE) UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...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 to pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring he proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/978/2025 dated 10.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction(OTC) and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had Gyears service and
have good feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University Grants
Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations made thereunder and
under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the same as illegal,
arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the
services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the provisions
of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/978/2025 dated 10.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass
5
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 12245 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 12246/2025
Between:
1. K V S SIREESHA, W/O T.V.R.PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS,
OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS,
GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE)
UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPATNAM R/O. D. NO.9-38-89, RAYAPPALEM
VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM - 531163.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
6
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT
4. THE COMMISIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GITAM CAMPUS, GANDHI
NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -
RESPONDENTS530045.
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/962/2025 dated
10.4.2025 issued by the 5TH Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from
her services as Assistant Professor in the Respondent School in a stigmatic
and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two devised systems known as
One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty Development program
(FDP)Performance Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had
above 16years service and have good feedback and credentials without
following established procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated
under University Grants Commission Act 1986 UGC and rules and regulations
made there under and under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the
same as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and
21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly
continuing the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to
the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there
under and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/962/2025 dated 10.4.2025 issued by the 5TH
7
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from her services as Assistant
Professor in the 6TH Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pasS
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 12246 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 12247/2025
Between:
1. BODASINGI UMA PRASAD RAO, S/O CHINNAPPALANAIDU, AGED
46 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
MATHEMATICS, GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO
BE) UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPATNAM R/O. FLAT NO.213, KAN
GARDENS, DURGA NAGAR, CHANDRAMPALEM, MADHURAWADA,
VISAKHAPATNAM - 530041
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
8
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, . REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, A P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045
6. GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE DEEMED TO BE GITAM UNIVERSITY,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GITAM CAMPUS, GANDHI NAGAR,
RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -
RESPONDENTS530045.
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of NoMandamus declaring the proceedings
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/971/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5TH
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6TH Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction(OTC) and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had above IGyears service
and have good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University
Grants Commission Act 1986 UGCand rules and regulations made thereunder
and under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the same as illegal,
arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the
services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the provisions
of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under and pass
9
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 12247 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 12248/2025
Between:
1. DR. NEELIMA DAVULURI,, S/O (LATE) D.V.V.RAMA RAO, AGED 36
YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
MATHEMATICS, GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO
BE) UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPATNAM R/O. FLAT NO.402, VAISHNAVI
ENCLAVE, NEAR AIMS COLLEGE, YENDADA, VISAKHAPATNAM -
530045
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
10
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, A P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GITAM CAMPUS, GANDHI
NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -
RESPONDENTS530045.
...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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction
preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/959/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from her services Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time Correction(
OTC ) and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement
plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had above 16years service and have
good feedback and credentials without following established procedures and
contrary to the procedure contemplated under University Grants Commission
Act 1986 UGC and rules and regulations made thereunder and under the
provisions of A P Education act declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and
particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India
and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the services of the
petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act,
1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under and pass such
11
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/959/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from her services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass such
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 12248 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 12249/2025
Between:
1. K ARUNA KUMARI, D/O K.RANGAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS,
GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE) UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM R/O. PLOT. NO.SBI-31, M.V.P COLONY,
VISAKHAPATNAM - 17.
...PETITIONER
12
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, A P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER HIGHER ANDHRA OF EDUCATION PRADESH,
, ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GUAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE GUAM, (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GUAM CAMPUS, GANDHI
NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -
RESPONDENTS530045.
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Noproceedings
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/960/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from her services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction(OTC) and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had above 18years service
and have good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under university
Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations made
thereunder and under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the same
13
as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of
the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly continuing
the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the
provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under
and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/960/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from her services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 12249 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 12250/2025
Between:
1. DR. SREEDHAR SOBHARIAPURAM, , S/O BALAKRISHNA, AGED 45
YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-67/1/6, OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE,
14
GITAM (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), VISAKHAPATNAM R/O
D.NO.3-67/1/6, FLAT NO.203,SIVARAMA ENCLAVE, SIRUGUDI
NAGAR, YENDADA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530045.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GUAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, , GUAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GUAM CAMPUS, GANDHI
NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -
RESPONDENTS530045.
...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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction
preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/965/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time Correction(
OTC ) and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement
15
plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had above 8years service and have
good feedback and credentials without following established procedures and
contrary to the procedure contemplated under University Grants Commission
Act 1986 UGCand rules and regulations made thereunder and under the
provisions of A P Education act declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and
particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India
and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the services of the
petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act,
1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under and pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/965/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass such
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 12250 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II-05151/AP/5151/2017
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
16
WRIT PETITION NO: 12264/2025
Between:
1. DR.BORA. RAVI KUMAR,, S/O B.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 46
YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
MATHEMATICS, GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO
BE) UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPATNAM, R/O. PLAT NO.226, M.V.P
COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530017
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108. COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER
EDUCATION
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GUAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GITAM CAMPUS, GANDHI
NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH
530045
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
17
Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/968/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction(OTC) and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had above IGyears service
and have good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University
Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations made
thereunder and under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the same
as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of
the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly continuing
the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the
provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under
and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/968/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pas
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 12264 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
18
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 12271/2025
Between:
1. P SRIDHAR MAISA, S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, GITAM
UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD CAMPUS, HYDERABAD, RUDRARAM-
502329, R/O. H.NO. 1-4-26, SARADHI NAGAR, KHAMMAM URBAN,
KHAMMAM-507003.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GITAM SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES,
HYDERABAD CAMPUS, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, GITAM
UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD.
...RESPONDENT(S):
19
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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings
No.GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/979/2025, dated 10.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction('OTC') and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had lOyears service and
have good feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University Grants
Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations made thereunder and
under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the same as illegal,
arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the
services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the provisions
of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/979/2025 dated 10.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 12271 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
20
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 12274/2025
Between:
1. DR. P.SREERAMULU,, S/O PATNAM.KRISHNAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS,
OCC. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH,
GITAM UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE, R/O. SAIKRUPA SANKALP,
APT.301, VENKATESWARA LAYOUT, MAHADEVAPURA,
BENAGALORE- 560048.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, AP
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER HIGHER ANDHRA PRADESH, ANR TOWERS,
1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH -
521108. OF EDUCATION
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GITAM SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES,
BENGLURU CAMPUS, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, GITAM UNIVERSITY,
BANGALORE.
21
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/980/2025 dated 10.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction('OTC') and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had 10 years service and
have good feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University Grants
Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations made thereunder and
under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the same as illegal,
arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the
services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the provisions
of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Reiieving/980/2025, dated 10.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 12274 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
22
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 12276/2025
Between:
1. DR. MINDI THRIVENI,, D/O D. ARJUNA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, GITAM
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES,
VISAKHAPATNAM CAMPUS, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE) UNIVERSITY,
VISAKHAPATNAM R/O. D. NO.3-72, GEDDA VEEDHI, KOTHAVALASA
VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM - 535183.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER, HIGHER EDUCATION ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, GITAM SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND
23
SOCIAL SCIENCES, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM
CAMPUS, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE) UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/977/2025 dated 10.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from her services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction(OTC) and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had lOyears service and
have good feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University Grants
Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations made thereunder and
under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the same as illegal,
arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the
services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the provisions
of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/977/2025 dated 10.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from her services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 12276 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
24
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 13964/2025
Between:
1. DR KONA RAJENDRA KUMAR, S/O. LATE KONDALA RAO, AGED 53,
OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS,
GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), VISAKHAPATNAM R/O 9-6-39, OPP AU COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING FOR WOMEN, SIVAJI PARK ROAD, SIVAJIPALEM,
VISAKHAPATNAM-530017.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER HIGHER OF EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
25
6. GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GITAM CAMPUS, GANDHI
NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -
RESPONDENTS530045.
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/961/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction(OTC) and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had 10 years of service and
have good feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University Grants
Commission Act 1986 UGC and rules and regulations made thereunder and
under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the same as illegal,
arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the
services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits
akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made
there under and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/961/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5*^
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
26
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 13964 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 13965/2025
Between:
1. DR BODDANA SIMHACHALAM, S/O. NAGABHUSHANA RAO, AGED
42 YRS, OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
MATHEMATICS, GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO
BE UNIVERSITY), VISAKHAPATNAM R/O FLAT NO 309, SVS
PIONEERS CASTLE SIVA SHAKTI NAGAR ROAD,
BOTTAVANIPALEM, MADHURWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER ANDHRA PRADESH, ANR
TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA
27
PRADESH - 521108. EDUCATION
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GUAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GUAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GUAM CAMPUS, GANDHI
NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -
RESPONDENTS
...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 toPleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/969/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5TH
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6TH Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction(OTC) and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had 16 years of service and
have good feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University Grants
Commission Act 1986 UGC and rules and regulations made thereunder and
under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the same as illegal,
arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the
services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits
akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made
there under and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/969/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5TH
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
28
Professor in the 6TH Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 13965 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 13966/2025
Between:
1. AKIRI SRIDHAR, , S/O. ESWARA RAO, AGED 47YRS, OCC
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS,
GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), VISAKHAPATNAM R/O D.NO 13-6/3/28,208, FLAT NO
208, CHINNA MUSHIRIWADA, INDRANI FUNCTION HALL BACK
SIDE, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM-530051.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
29
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION,
ANDHRA PRADESH, ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, PRASADAMPADU
VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, , REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GITAM CAMPUS, GANDHI
NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, 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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/967/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction(OTC) and Faculty Development program (FDPyPerformance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had 12 years of service and
have good feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University Grants
Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations made thereunder and
under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the same as illegal,
arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the
services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits
akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made
there under and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
30
pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/967/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.05.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 13966 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 14652/2025
Between:
1. PEDDI PHANI BUSHAN RAO, S/O LATE PEDDI VENKATA APPA RAO,
AGED 52 YEARS,OCC. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
MATHEMATICS, GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO
BE UNIVERSITY) VISAKHAPATNAM R/O. 5-168/2, GF-102, S. V.
GARDENS, GOLLALA YENDADA,VISAKHAPATNAM - 530045
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
31
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS
CHAIRMAN,BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER ANDHRA PRADESH, ANR
TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR,PRASADAMPADU VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 521108. EDUCATION
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GITAM CAMPUS, GANDHI
NAGAR,RUSHIKONCLA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -
530045.
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus (a)declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/963/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction('OTC') and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner has above 16years (past
and present in 5th respondent university) service and has good feedback and
credentials, without following established procedures, and contrary to the
procedure contemplated under University Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC)
and rules and regulations made thereunder and under the provisions of A P
Education act, as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1)
(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and (b)further declare the action of the
5th Respondent in communicating a mail dated 03-06-2025 to petitioner where
under declining to consider the petitioner's requests sought for the continuation
of the petitioner's services vide mails dated 27-04-25 and 28-04-25 as illegal
32
and unfair (c)consequently set aside the same by reinstating the petitioner into
service with continuity of services along with all consequential benefits akin to
the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there
under and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/963/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
leased to vacate the interim order dated 19.06.2025 in the above writ petition
no. 14652 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 14654/2025
Between:
1. DR. BISWAJIT RATH,, S/O LATE BIMBADHARA RAO, AGED 45
YEARS,OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
MATHEMATICS, GITAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GITAM (DEEMED TO
BE UNIVERSITY) VISAKHAPATNAM R/O. FLAT-402, SUJATHA
33
HEIGHTS, P.M.PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530042
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 127C, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP BY ITS
CHAIRMAN,BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI -110002.
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A P
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR,PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108.
5. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 530045.
6. GUAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, GUAM (DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY), REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, GUAM CAMPUS, GANDHI
NAGAR,RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -
530045.
...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 to pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/970/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5th
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable
manner by introducing a two devised systems known as One Time
Correction(OTC) and Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance
Improvement plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had above 9 years service
and have good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University
34
Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations made
thereunder and under the provisions of A P Education act declaring the same
as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g)
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the
services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the provisions
of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/970/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by the 5TH
Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant
Professor in the 6th Respondent School pending disposal of the writ petition
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 vacate the interim order dated 19.06.2025 in the above writ petition
no. 14654 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 35894/2025
Between:
1. NALLAMOTHU VANI, W/O B SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 51YRS, OCC
DEPUTY MANAGER, DIRECTORATE OF UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCE
DEPARTMENT, R/O FLAT NO 301, GITAM STAFF QUARTER, GITAM
UNIVERSITY VISAKHAPATNAM-530045.
35
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 127-C SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
BHAHADUR SHAH MARG, NEW DELHI 110002.
3. GITAM DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA VISAKHAPATNAM- 530045.,
4. THE DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCE DEPARTMENT, GITAM
(DEEMED TO BE) UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPATNAM GITAM CAMPUS,
GANDHI NAGAR, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530045.
5. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.522503
6. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH,
ANR TOWERS, PRASADAMPADU VIJAYAWADA-521108.
...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 to pleased to issue an order direction or writ, more particularly one in
the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the Proceedings No.
GDU/CAO/HR/NTS/ DUE/Separation/3861/2025 dated 16.12.2025 of the
Respondent communicated to petitioner through E Mail on 16.12.2025 and
through postal on 18.12.2025 where under relieving the petitioner from her
services w.e.f 16.12.2025 in Respondent Department by paying three months
full salary in lieu of notice under a caption titled Letter of Separation alleging
that the petitioner performance has constantly fallen below the expectations of
her role and has been unsatisfactory despite feedback, guidance and
opportunities for improvement, the expected standards have not been met
without specifying any University Rule in authorizing the 3rd respondent to
relieve the petitioner in such unceremonious and stigmatic manner whose
services are being utilized for 18 years 11 Months as, illegal arbitrary, lack of
due procedure of law, opposing to the principles of natural justice, null and
void. Contrary to section 79 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982
Violation of Article violative of Articles 14,19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of
India and set aside the same and direct the respondents 3 and 4 to take the
petitioner back into service duly continuing the services of the petitioner with all
consequential and attended benefits and pass
36
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 suspend the operation of the Proceedings No. GDU/CAO/HR/NTS/
DUE/Separation/3861/2025 dated 16.12.2025 of the 3th Respondent
communicated to petitioner through E Mail on 16.12.2025 & through postal on
18.12.2025 where under relieving the petitioner from her services w.e.f.
16.12.2025 in 4TH Respondent Department pending disposal of the writ
petition and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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
May be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 23.12.2025 in the above writ
petition no. 35894 of 2025. and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA (SC FOR UGC)
2. GP FOR SERVICES III
3.
4. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
The Court made the following:
37
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.12179 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
DU/CAO/HR/GSS/ Relieving/966/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by
the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from her services
as Assistant Professor in the Respondent School in a stigmatic and
in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two devised systems
known as One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty Development
program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP) even though
the petitioner had above IGyears service and have good feedback
and credentials without following established procedures and
contrary to the procedure contemplated under University Grants
Commission Act 1986 UGC and rules and regulations made there
under and under the provisions of A.P. Education Act declaring the
same as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14,
19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set
aside the same duly continuing the services of the petitioner with
all consequential benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act,
1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under and pass….”
W.P.No.12245 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring he proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/978/2025 dated 10.4.2025 issued
by the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his
services as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a
stigmatic and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two
devised systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and
Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement
plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had Gyears service and
have good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under
38University Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and
regulations made there under and under the provisions of
A.P.Education act declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and
particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly
continuing the services of the petitioner with all consequential
benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules
and Regulations made there under and passW.P.No.12246 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring he proceedings No.
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/978/2025 dated 10.4.2025 issued
by the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his
services as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a
stigmatic and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two
devised systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and
Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement
plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had Gyears service and
have good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under
University Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and
regulations made there under and under the provisions of A P
Education act declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and
particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly
continuing the services of the petitioner with all consequential
benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules
and Regulations made there under and pass
39W.P.No.12247 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/971/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by
the 5TH Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his
services as Assistant Professor in the 6TH Respondent School in
a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two
devised systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty
Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP)
even though the petitioner had above IGyears service and have
good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under
University Grants Commission Act 1986 UGCand rules and
regulations made thereunder and under the provisions of A P
Education act declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and
particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly
continuing the services of the petitioner with all consequential
benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and
Regulations made there under and pass….”
W.P.No.12248 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/971/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by
the 5TH Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his
services as Assistant Professor in the 6TH Respondent School in
a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two
devised systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty
Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP)
even though the petitioner had above IGyears service and have
good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under
University Grants Commission Act 1986 UGCand rules and
regulations made thereunder and under the provisions of A P
40Education act declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and
particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly
continuing the services of the petitioner with all consequential
benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and
Regulations made there under and pass….”
W.P.No.12249 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings
No.GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/960/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued
by the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from her
services as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a
stigmatic and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two
devised systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty
Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP)
even though the petitioner had above 18years service and have
good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under
university Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and
regulations made there under and under the provisions of A P
Education act declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and
particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly
continuing the services of the petitioner with all consequential
benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and
Regulations made there under and pass….”
W.P.No.12250 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/965/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by
the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services
as Assistant Professor in the Respondent School in a stigmatic and
41in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two devised systems
known as One Time Correction( OTC ) and Faculty Development
program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP) even though
the petitioner had above 8years service and have good feedback
and credentials without following established procedures and
contrary to the procedure contemplated under University Grants
Commission Act 1986 UGCand rules and regulations made
thereunder and under the provisions of A P Education act declaring
the same as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14,
19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set
aside the same duly continuing the services of the petitioner with
all consequential benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act,
1956 and Rules and Regulations made there under and pass
such….”
W.P.No.12264 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/968/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by
the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services
as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic
and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two devised
systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty
Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP)
even though the petitioner had above IGyears service and have
good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under
University Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and
regulations made there under and under the provisions of A P
Education act declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and
particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly
continuing the services of the petitioner with all consequential
benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and
Regulations made there under and pass….”
42
W.P.No.12271 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings
No.GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/979/2025, dated 10.4.2025
issued by the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from
his services as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School
in a stigmatic and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two
devised systems known as One Time Correction(‘OTC’) and
Faculty Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement
plan (PIP) even though the petitioner had lOyears service and have
good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under
University Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and
regulations made there under and under the provisions of A P
Education act declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and
particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly
continuing the services of the petitioner with all consequential
benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and
Regulations made there under and pass….”
W.P.No.12274 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/980/2025 dated 10.4.2025 issued by
the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services
as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic
and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two devised
systems known as One Time Correction(‘OTC’) and Faculty
Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP)
even though the petitioner had 10 years service and have good
feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University
Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations
made there under and under the provisions of A P Education act
43declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of
Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently set aside the same duly continuing the services of
the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the provisions
of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there
under and pass….”
W.P.No.12276 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/977/2025 dated 10.4.2025 issued by
the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from her services
as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic
and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two devised
systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty
Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP)
even though the petitioner had lOyears service and have good
feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University
Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations
made thereunder and under the provisions of A P Education act
declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of
Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently set aside the same duly continuing the services of
the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the provisions
of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there
under and pass….”
W.P.No.13964 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/961/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by
the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services
as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic
44and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two devised
systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty
Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP)
even though the petitioner had 10 years of service and have good
feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University
Grants Commission Act 1986 UGC and rules and regulations made
thereunder and under the provisions of A P Education act declaring
the same as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14,
19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set
aside the same duly continuing the services of the petitioner with
all consequential benefits and attendant benefits akin to the
provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made
there under and pass….”
W.P.No.13965 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/961/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by
the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services
as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic
and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two devised
systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty
Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP)
even though the petitioner had 10 years of service and have good
feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University
Grants Commission Act 1986 UGC and rules and regulations made
thereunder and under the provisions of A P Education act declaring
the same as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14,
19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set
aside the same duly continuing the services of the petitioner with all
consequential benefits and attendant benefits akin to the provisions
of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made there
under and pass….”
45
W.P.No.13966 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/967/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by
the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services
as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic
and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two devised
systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty
Development program (FDPy Performance Improvement plan (PIP)
even though the petitioner had 12 years of service and have good
feedback and credentials without following established procedures
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under University
Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations
made there under and under the provisions of A P Education act
declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of
Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently set aside the same duly continuing the services of
the petitioner with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits
akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and
Regulations made there under and pass….”
W.P.No.14652 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus (a)declaring the proceedings No
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/963/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by
the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services
as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic
and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two devised
systems known as One Time Correction(‘OTC’) and Faculty
Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP)
even though the petitioner has above 16years (past and present in
5th respondent university) service and has good feedback and
credentials, without following established procedures, and contrary
to the procedure contemplated under University Grants
Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and regulations made
46thereunder and under the provisions of A P Education act, as
illegal, arbitrary and particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g)
and 21 of the Constitution of India and (b)further declare the action
of the 5th Respondent in communicating a mail dated 03-06-2025
to petitioner where under declining to consider the petitioner’s
requests sought for the continuation of the petitioner’s services vide
mails dated 27-04-25 and 28-04-25 as illegal and unfair
(c)consequently set aside the same by reinstating the petitioner
into service with continuity of services along with all consequential
benefits akin to the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and
Regulations made there under and pass ….”
W.P.No.14654 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.
GDU/CAO/HR/GSS/Relieving/970/2025 dated 11.4.2025 issued by
the 5th Respondent herein relieving the petitioner from his services
as Assistant Professor in the 6th Respondent School in a stigmatic
and in an unjustifiable manner by introducing a two devised
systems known as One Time Correction(OTC) and Faculty
Development program (FDP)/Performance Improvement plan (PIP)
even though the petitioner had above 9 years service and have
good feedback and credentials without following established
procedures and contrary to the procedure contemplated under
University Grants Commission Act 1986 (UGC) and rules and
regulations made there under and under the provisions of A.P.
Education act declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and
particularly violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) Constitution of India
and consequently set aside the same duly continuing the services
of the petitioner with all consequential benefits akin to the
provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and Rules and Regulations made
there under….”
W.P.No.35894 of 2025:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
47
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Proceedings No.
GDU/CAO/HR/NTS/ DUE/Separation/3861/2025 dated 16.12.2025 of the
Respondent communicated to petitioner through E Mail on 16.12.2025
and through postal on 18.12.2025 where under relieving the petitioner
from her services w.e.f 16.12.2025 in Respondent Department by paying
three months full salary in lieu of notice under a caption titled Letter of
Separation alleging that the petitioner performance has constantly fallen
below the expectations of her role and has been unsatisfactory despite
feedback, guidance and opportunities for improvement, the expected
standards have not been met without specifying any University Rule in
authorizing the 3rd respondent to relieve the petitioner in such
unceremonious and stigmatic manner whose services are being utilized
for 18 years 11 Months as, illegal arbitrary, lack of due procedure of law,
opposing to the principles of natural justice, null and void. Contrary to
section 79 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 Violation of Article
violative of Articles 14,19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and
set aside the same and direct the respondents 3 and 4 to take the
petitioner back into service duly continuing the services of the petitioner
with all consequential and attended benefits and pass….”
The issue involved in all the Writ Petitions is one and the same and
hence all the Writ Petitions are being disposed of with a common order
by taking W.P.No.12179 of 2025 as a leading case.
2. Heard Sri A.Satya Prasad, learned senior counsel for petitioners,
Sri Yellareddi Rajanala, learned standing counsel for University Grants
Commission and Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for GITAM
(Deemed to be University).
3. The entire batch of Writ Petitions are filed questioning the
termination orders of the petitioners’ by respondent no.5 GITAM
(Deemed to be University). Considering the submissions, at the stage of
admission, this Court has passed the following interim order:
48
“Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General
takes notice for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government
Pleader for Services II takes notice for respondents 3 and 4.
Issue notice to respondents 5 and 6.
Learned counsel for petitioner is permitted to take out
personal notice to respondents 5 and 6 by RPAD and file proof of
service in the Registry.
Petitioner is appointed as Assistant Professor at 6th
respondent, which is run by 5th respondent – Deemed to be
University. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri A.Satya Prasad, submits
that respondents 5 and 6 are governed by the provisions of
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Act No.3 of 1956)
inasmuch as under section 3, it is the Central Government, which
has recognized the said University. Now, the respondents 5 and 6
have come up with procedure which is not contemplated or
envisaged under the provisions of aforesaid Act/Regulation by
introducing Performance Improvement Plan and Faculty
Development Programme for the purpose of reviewing and fixing
the salaries to petitioner under guise of one time salary correction
exercise. As petitioner did not succeed in the said programme,
now, through the impugned proceedings petitioner is sought to be
removed from service w.e.f. 30.05.2025.
In view of the aforesaid submissions and as it transpires
that by impugned proceedings dated 10.04.2025, petitioner is
sought to be relieved w.e.f. 30.05.2025, there shall be interim
suspension of the said proceedings till 18.06.2025.
4. After notice respondent nos.2, 5 and 6 have filed their counters.
Respondent no.5 has filed his counter only with regard to the
49
maintainability of the Writ Petition and he reserved right to file counter on
merits. While taking up the matter for hearing, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent no.5 has stressed his argument only on
maintainability of the Writ Petition and requested to decide the issue
instead of going into the merits of the case.
5. Reply to the said objections raised by respondent no.5, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has made his
submissions on maintainability of the Writ Petition. To support his
contentions, learned senior counsel has mainly relied on the provisions of
the University Grants Commission Act i.e. Act 3 of 1956 (for short
hereinafter referred to be as the Act) and Regulations made there under.
According to the petitioners, the respondent University is declared as
deemed to be university as per Section 2(f) and Section 3 of the Act.
Section 2(f) defines University means a University established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act,
and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the
University concerned. Section 3 of the Act deals with regard to deemed
to be University. The Central Government may, on the advice of the
Commission, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any
institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed
to be a University for the purposes of this Act. Once the institution has
50
been declared as deemed to be University all the provisions of the Act
are applicable to respondent no.5 Institution also.
6. Further he relies on Section 22 of the Act which deals with right to
confer degrees. As per Section 22, respondent no.5 University has a
right to confer degrees to the students. Accordingly, respondent no.5
institution has granted degrees to the students which is a public function.
To substantiate his claim, he also relied on the various regulations made
by the University Grants Commission (herein after to be referred as
UGC). More particularly notification issued on 18.7.2018 by the UGC.
Based on the above provisions of the Act 3 of 1956, Section 3 of the Act
clearly describes the deemed to be University and also declared under
Section 22 particularly to confer the degrees on the students of deemed
University. By virtue of the said action, respondent no.5 University is
performing a public duty and accordingly amenable to the Writ
jurisdiction.
7. To substantiate his contentions, learned senior counsel has relied
on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharati
Vidyapeeth (deemed university) and others vs. State of Maharashtra
and another.1 The said judgment is pertaining to fixation of capitation fee
by the deemed University, hence the said Judgment is not applicable to
1
(2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 755
51
the facts of the present case. Secondly learned senior counsel relied on
the observations made by the Supreme Court in Janet Jeyapaul vs.
SRM University and Others2 the relevant paragraphs are as follows:
“Learned counsel then urged that in the light of several decisions
of this Court, one cannot now perhaps dispute that “imparting education
to students at large” is a “public function” and, therefore, if any body or
authority, as the case may be, is found to have been engaged in the
activity of imparting education to the students at large then irrespective
of the status of any such authority, it should be made amenable to writ
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. Learned counsel further pointed out that the case in hand
clearly shows that respondent No. 1 – a juristic body is engaged in
imparting education in higher studies and what is more significant is that
respondent No. 1 is conferred with a status of a “Deemed University” by
the Central Government under Section 3 of the UGC Act. These two
factors, according to Mr. Harish Salve, would make respondent No. 1
amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 because
it satisfies the twin test laid down for attracting the rigor of writ jurisdiction
of the High Court.
Applying the aforesaid principle of law to the facts of the case in
hand, we are of the considered view that the Division Bench of the High
Court erred in holding that respondent No. 1 is not subjected to the writ
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In
other words, it should have been held that respondent No.1 is subjected
to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
22. This we say for the reasons that firstly, respondent No. 1 is
engaged in imparting education in higher studies to students at large.
Secondly, it is discharging “public function” by way of imparting
education. Thirdly, it is notified as a “Deemed University” by the Central
Government under Section 3 of the UGC Act. Fourthly, being a “Deemed
University”, all the provisions of the UGC Act are made applicable to
respondent No. 1, which inter alia provides for effective discharge of the
public function – namely education for the benefit of public. Fifthly, once
respondent No. 1 is declared as “Deemed University” whose all functions
and activities are governed by the UGC Act, alike other universities then
it is an “authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Lastly, once it is held to be an “authority” as provided in Article 12 then
as a necessary consequence, it becomes amenable to writ jurisdiction of
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2
(2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 530
52
23. In the light of foregoing discussion, we cannot concur with the
finding rendered by the Division Bench and accordingly while reversing
the finding we hold that the appellant’s writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution against respondent No. 1 is maintainable.
8. In the above referred Judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly
held that the respondent no.1 is conferred with the status of a deemed
University by the Central Government under Section 3 of the UGC Act
and accordingly, respondent no.1 is amenable to Writ jurisdiction and
declared that the Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and held that the respondent University (SRM
University) is subject to Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Further learned senior counsel relied on the citation of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah3
wherein the Court has considered and as per Section 2(c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C.Act) held that any
person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of any governing body,
professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever
designation called, or any university and any person whose services have
been availed of by a university or any other public authority in connection
with holding or conducting examinations. While considering the case, the
Court has also considered that ambit of term of university as occurred
3
(2020) 20 Supreme Court Cases 360
53
under Section 2(c)(xi) of the P.C.Act has not been clearly defined and the
question arises as to whether the same governs deemed to be University
as a whole. And finally declared that the employees of the deemed
University also will come under the definition of public servant under
P.C.Act.
10. Based on the above rulings, learned senior counsel has submitted
that respondent no.5 University comes under definition of Section 3 of the
U.G.C.Act and as per Section 22 of the said Act, respondent no.5
University has right to award/confer the degrees to the students. In the
said circumstances, respondent no.5 university is discharging the public
functions/duties. He further reiterated that respondent no.5 University is
deemed to be University under Section 3 of the Act and all the
regulations made under the UGC Act are applicable to the respondent
no.5 University. More particularly for appointments, qualifications and
service conditions are governed by the regulations issued by the UGC
Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are maintainable and more
specifically the said issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the judgment in Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and
Others (referred to supra).
11. Reply to the said contentions, learned counsel Sri C.V.R.Rudra
Prasad has mainly contended that respondent no.5 institution is a
54
registered society under Societies Registration Act. Originally the said
institution was enunciated in the year 1980 by establishing an
engineering college and expanded the other disciplines in higher
education. In the year 2007, the said institution was recognized as
deemed to be University under Section 3 of the U.G.C.Act. The said
society and institutions are no profit entities and no aid is received from
either State or Central or by the UGC i.e. University Grants Commission.
Hence respondent no.5 institution is a private unaided University. There
is no dip and perverse control of the State over its affairs for
implementation of the performance appraisal as per the regulations of the
UGC. In the said back drop, learned counsel has mainly submitted that
though the Writ Petition is maintainable against respondent no.5
institution, as the said institution is discharging public functions/duties, but
the question of maintainability of the impugned action is settled by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of Judgments.
12. Initially he made submissions reply to the senior counsel with
regard to observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in between
Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and Others (referred to supra).
Though in the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the
observations of the Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. Union of India4 and held that
4
(2005) 4 SCC 649
55
the respondent university is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. But in the said judgment the Court has
also considered and observed as follows:
“This takes us to the next argument urged by learned counsel for
the respondents. Placing reliance on para 231 of the decision of this
Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka &
Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481, learned counsel contended that even assuming
that the appellant’s writ petition is maintainable, yet it should not be
entertained for hearing on merits and instead the appellant be granted
liberty to approach the District Judge/Additional District Judge of the
concerned District which is designated as Tribunal till formation of
regular Tribunal for redressal of her grievances as directed by the
Constitution Bench in Para 231 of T.M.A. Pai‘s case (supra).
25. In normal course, we would have been inclined to accept this
submission made by learned counsel for the respondents and would
have also granted liberty to the appellant to approach the Tribunal in
term of the directions given by the Constitution Bench of this Court. But
since in this case, the Single Judge not only entertained the appellant’s
writ petition but he allowed the writ petition on merits whereas the
Division Bench held the writ petition as not maintainable and thus
declined to examine the merits of the controversy involved in the writ
petition.
Based on the above observations, it is clear that the Hon’ble Apex
Court has entertained the matter only on the ground that the learned
Single Judge of the High Court has dealt the matter on merits and
decided. In that view, the Court is not inclined to relegate the matter to
the Tribunal. Hence the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
SRM University case has held that the Writ Petition is maintainable and
with regard to merits taking the circumstances in that case the Court has
passed orders.
56
13. Learned counsel has placed strong reliance on latest judgments of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the identical issue in St. Mary’s Education
Society and another vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others 5
wherein the Court has formulated the following questions:
i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is
maintainable against private unaided minority institution; and
ii) Whether service dispute in private realm involving private educational
institution and its employee can be adjudicated under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
Answering the said questions the Court held that:
75. We may sum up our final conclusions as under:
75.1. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is
maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or
public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or
otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be
shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law
element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of d public function, it
must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve
the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the
authority to do so must be accepted by the public.
75.2. Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is
imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct nexus
with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public law action
which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or
breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its
integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226.
5
(2023) 4 Supreme Court Cases 498
57
Wherever Courts have intervened in their exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226, either the service conditions were regulated by the statutory
provisions or the employer had the status of “State” within the expansive
definition under Article 12 or it was found that the action complained of
has public law element.
75.3. It must be consequently held that while a body may be
discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its
actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a constitutional court,
its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High
Court conferred by Article 9 226 in respect of matter relating to service
where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. An
educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various
facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those
functions as would fall within the domain of a “public function” or “public
duty” be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226
of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the
confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or
backing, cannot be recognized as being amenable to challenge under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions
being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would
remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service.
75.4. Even if it be perceived that imparting education by private
unaided school is a public duty within the expanded expression of the
term, an employee of a non-teaching staff engaged by the school for the
purpose of its administration or internal management is only an agency
created by it. It is immaterial whether “A” or “B” is employed by school to
discharge that b duty. In any case, the terms of employment of contract
between a school and non-teaching staff cannot and should not be
construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education.
This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be
58
initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an
employee of non-teaching staff is regulated by some statutory
provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of c law may be
interfered with by the Court. But such interference will be on the ground
of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of
public duty.
75.5. From the pleadings in the original writ petition, it is apparent
that no element of any public law is agitated or otherwise made out. In
other words, the action challenged has no public element and writ of
mandamus cannot be d issued as the action was essentially of a private
character.
76. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the learned
Single Judge of the High Court was justified in taking the view that the
original writ application filed by Respondent 1 herein under Article 226 of
the Constitution is not maintainable. The appeal court could be said to
have committed an error in taking a contrary view.
14. Following the above ratio, the Hon’ble Apex Court once again
reaffirmed the above judgment in Army Welfare Education Society
New Delhi vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma and others6. In the said judgment
a school was being conducted by St. Gabriel’s academy which is run by
Army Welfare Education Society (for short AWES) and the AWES rules
are applicable which are governed by the guidelines and regulations of
CBSE. When there is a parity of payment of salaries, the petitioners have
filed a Writ Petition. Learned single judge allowed the Writ Petition by
6
(2024) 16 SCC 598
59
issuing a Mandamus in favour of the petitioners and the Division bench
eventually dismissed the special appeal against the judgment of the
single judge. Accordingly, the matter has been landed before the Hon’ble
Apex Court. Considering the facts in the said matter, the Court has
formulated the following questions:
a. Whether the Appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a
“State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make a writ
petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against it? In
other words, whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a
private educational institution and its employees can be adjudicated
upon in a writ petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution?
b. Even if it is assumed that the Appellant Army Welfare
Education Society is a body performing public duty amenable to writ
jurisdiction, whether all the decisions are subject to judicial review or only
those decisions which have public law element therein can be judicially
reviewed under the writ jurisdiction?
To answer the above questions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
initially considered the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College vs. Lakshmi Narain 7.
In the said judgment the Court has held that a contract of personal
service cannot ordinarily be enforced specifically. In that three
expectations were carved out i.e. 1. Where a public servant is sought to
be removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311
7
AIR 1976 SC 888
60of the Constitution of India; 2. Where a worker is sought to be reinstated
under the Industrial Law; 3. Where a statutory body acts in breach or
violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute. In fact in the said
judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has also defined what is statutory body
was. One which was created by or under a statute and owned its
existence to a statute. And held that an institution governed by certain
statutory provisions for its proper maintenance and administration would
not be a statutory body.
15. And the same analogy has been followed by the Hon’ble Apex
court in J.Tiwari vs. Jawala Devi Vidya Mandir.8 Again it is reiterated
that the rights and obligations of an employee of a private institution are
governed by the terms of the contract between the parties and the rules
and regulations of the University or the provisions of the Educational
Code framed by the State Government may be applicable to the
institution and if the provisions thereof are violated, the University may be
entitled to disaffiliation. But that would not, however, make that the
institution is a public or a statutory body. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has considered the ratio decided by Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree
8
(1979) 4 SCC 160
61
Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust &
Ors. V. R.Rudani and Ors.9 it reads as follows:
“14.If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus
can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with
no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to
mandamus. But once these are absent and when the party has no other
equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. It has to be
appreciated that the Appellant Trust was managing the affiliated college
to which public money is paid as government aid. Public money paid as
government aid plays a major role in the control, maintenance and
working of educational institutions. The aided institutions like government
institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to
students. They are subject to the rules and regulations of the affiliating
university. Their activities are closely supervised by the University
authorities. Employment in such institutions, therefore, is not devoid of
any public character. [See The Evolving Indian Administrative Law by
M.P. Jain (1983) p. 266.J So are the service conditions of the academic
staff. When the University takes a decision regarding their pay scales, it
will be binding on the management. The service conditions of the
academic staff are, therefore, not purely of a private character. It has
super-added protection by University decisions creating a legal right-duty
relationship between the staff and the management. When there is
existence of this relationship, mandamus cannot be refused to the
aggrieved party.
16. There, however, the prerogative writ of mandamus is confined
only to public authorities to compel performance of public duty. The
‘public authority’ for them means everybody which is created by statute’
and whose powers and duties are defined by statute. So government
9
(1989) 2 SCC 691
62
departments, local authorities, police authorities, and statutory
undertakings and corporations, are all ‘public authorities’. But there is no
such limitation for our High Courts to issue the writ ‘in the nature of
mandamus’. Article 226 confers wide powers on the High Courts to issue
writs in the nature of prerogative writs. This is a striking departure from
the English law. Under Article 226, writs can be issued to ‘any person or
authority’. It can be issued ‘for the enforcement of any of the fundamental
rights and for any other purpose’.
19. The term ‘authority’ used in Article 226, in the context, must
receive a liberal meaning like the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant
only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights Under Article
32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for
enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights.
The words ‘any person or authority’ used in Article 226 are, therefore, not
to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the
State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty.
The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is
relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be
judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority
to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed. If a
positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied.”
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the ratio decided in
K.K.Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage 10
in which it is observed as follows:
“43. What follows from a minute and careful reading of the
aforesaid judgments of this Court is that if a person or authority is “State”
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, admittedly a writ
10
(2015) 4 SCC 670
63
petition Under Article 226 would lie against such a person or body.
However, we may add that even in such cases writ would not lie to
enforce private law rights. There are catena of judgments on this aspect
and it is not necessary to refer to those judgments as that is the basic
principle of judicial review of an action under the administrative law. The
reason is obvious. A private law is that part of a legal system which is a
part of common law that involves relationships between individuals, such
as law of contract or torts. Therefore, even if writ petition would be
maintainable against an authority, which is “State” Under Article 12 of
the Constitution, before issuing any writ, particularly writ of mandamus,
the Court has to satisfy that action of such an authority, which is
challenged, is in the domain of public law as distinguished from private
law.
52. It is trite that contract of personal service cannot be enforced.
There are three exceptions to this rule, namely:
(i) when the employee is a public servant working under the Union
of India or State;
(ii) when such an employee is employed by an authority/body
which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India; and
(iii) when such an employee is “workmen” within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and raises a dispute
regarding his termination by invoking the machinery under the said Act.
In the first two cases, the employment ceases to have private law
character and “status” to such an employment is attached. In the third
category of cases, it is the Industrial Disputes Act which confers
jurisdiction on the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to grant reinstatement
in case termination is found to be illegal.”
64
In the Army Welfare Educational Society (referred to supra) the
Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the observations of the Janet
Jeyapaul vs. SRM University (referred to supra)
17. Finally by considering all the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court
right from 1975 in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College vs.
Lakshmi Narain till Saint Mary’s Educational Society and
another(referred to supra) in the year 2023 has concluded by reiterating
the conclusions holding that the institutions imparting education involving
public duty. Hence before law they will not said to be involved holding
that the society is a Statue within Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
However, the relationship between the respondents herein and appellant
society is employee and employer and a private employer arising out of a
private contract and breach of a Covent of a private contract, the same
does not touch any public law element and accordingly held that the Writ
Petition is not maintainable.
18. Based on the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 has submitted
that even in the instant case, the petitioners were appointed by
respondent no.5 and accordingly, they have also entered an employment
agreement with certain conditions and same is annexed along with the
Writ Petition. In the said circumstances, if any violation or contravention
65
to the conditions of the said agreement, the petitioners have to approach
the private law remedy more specifically as per the rulings of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka11.
19. Reply to the said contentions, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners have submitted that in the instant case,
respondent no.5 University is a deemed University accordingly, all the
provisions of Act 3 of 1956 and the regulations made there under are
applicable to the respondent University. Once the rules and regulations
are applicable to the respondent university and they are also entitled to
confer the degrees as per Section 22 of the UGC Act, the respondent
University is amicable to the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, he stated that
the Writ Petitions are maintainable for violation of the service conditions
of the petitioners by impugned action.
20. Having considered the submissions of both counsel, as the issue of
maintainability with regard to respondent no.5 institution is concerned has
already been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court more specifically in
Saint Mary’s Educational Society and another(referred to supra) and
the same was re-affirmed in Army Welfare Educational Society
(referred to supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held
that institution may be discharging public functions, but employees would
11
(2002) 8 SCC 481
66
not have right to invoke the power of High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. As further contended by the learned senior counsel
that the rules and regulations and provisions of the UGC Act are
applicable to respondent no.5 institution, hence, the Writ Petitions are
maintainable, has already been answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College vs. Lakshmi Narain
(referred to supra) wherein the Court has clearly defined a statutory body
and held where the institutions covered by certain statutory provisions for
proper maintenance would not amount to a statutory body.
21. Subsequently, it was also brought to the notice of this Court that in
batch of Writ Petitions i.e. W.P.Nos.14511 of 2024 and batch, which are
identical to the issue involved in these Writ Petitions, the coordinate
bench of this Court has dismissed the said batch with the following
observations:
“…In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of St. Mary’s Education Society & Another vs. Rajendra
Prasad Bhargava & Others, (referred supra), although imparting of
education is in the realm of discharging of public duty. However,
the service conditions of the petitioner(s) in the present cases are
not governed by any statutory provisions. In fact, they are matters
of contractual obligation between the petitioners and the
respondent College.
67
Having regard to the same, following the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society &
Another vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Others, (referred supra),
this Court is of the view that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable.
The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed……”
22. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court more
specifically the ratio decided in Saint Mary’s Educational Society and
another(referred to supra) and re-affirmed in Army Welfare Educational
Society (referred to supra), though writ petition is maintainable against
the educational institutions run by society or private universities is
amenable to writ jurisdiction, but with regard to service conditions of the
employees of the educational institutions, the Court categorically held
that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. Following the same, this
Court hold that in these instant cases, the petitioners have approached
this Court aggrieved by the action of removal from service, in which no
public element established; the impugned action is only a private
character, hence no Mandamus can be issued.
23. In view of the above conclusions, this Court holds that, as against
the impugned action, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable and
accordingly all the Writ Petitions are dismissed and the interim order
granted earlier in all the Writ Petitions stand vacated. No costs.
68
24. Sri A.Satya Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for
petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that the respondents 5
and 6 have implemented the interim order and paid the salaries and the
said payment is subject to the result of the Writ Petition. In view of the
dismissal of the Writ Petition, the respondents may issue recovery orders
against the petitioners.
25. Considering the said submissions as the respondents have paid
the salaries in terms of the interim order granted by this Court in this
batch of Writ Petitions, the respondents are directed not to recover the
amounts which were already paid to the petitioners in terms of the interim
order dated 06.5.2025 granted by this Court.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 01.4.2026
RD
69
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION Nos. 12179, 12245, 12246, 12247, 12248, 12249,
12250, 12264, 12271, 12274, 12276, 13964, 13965, 13966, 14652,
14654 and 35894 of 2025
Dated: 01.4.2026
RD
