C.Praveen Kumar vs The State Of Telangana

Telangana High Court

C.Praveen Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 1 May, 2024

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

              WRIT PETITION NO.27317 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the respondents 2 to 8 in causing an enquiry and acting on representation, dated 12.08.2023 with regard to admission given to the twelfth respondent herein in Three Years Law Degree Course by Andhra Mahila Sabha Law College, Hyderabad, who is working as full-time employee with M/s. S & P Global Company, Hyderabad, contrary to the norms stipulated by the Osmania University with regard to Law Course in the interest of promoting fairness and transparency in legal education, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioner is a whistle blower and social worker. He has filed this Writ Petition to cause an enquiry against the twelfth respondent stating that she has been prosecuting her Law Course while working as an employee in the eleventh respondent-Organization.

3. Except stating that the petitioner is a whistle blower and social worker, he has not stated any reasons for filing of this Writ Petition. A careful reading of the allegations would disclose that he is having differences and personal animosity with the 2 twelfth respondent and only to take revenge against her and to settle his score, a complaint seems to have been lodged against the twelfth respondent stating that she has been prosecuting Law Course while working in the organization of the eleventh respondent. Viewed from any angle, the petitioner has not made any case to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry on the allegations/representation submitted by the petitioner. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, with a malafide intention, has instituted this Writ Petition and insisted the respondents to introduce biometric system in the institutions.

4. It is settled law that the Academic Council of the respective Universities and the University Grants Commission would frame appropriate guidelines to maintain academic standards in the respective institutions. This Court normally would not exercise its discretion directing the Academic Councils or Universities to frame certain guidelines for the convenience of the petitioner or the students, who are prosecuting their studies.

5. Mr. Moinuddin, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent, has placed reliance on Writ Petition No.3102 of 3 2023 filed for the similar cause as in this Writ Petition, which was dismissed vide order, dated 15.11.2023 and against the said dismissal order, W.A.No.1148 of 2023 has been filed. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Appeal vide its order, dated 11.12.2023 observing as under:-

"The writ of mandamus cannot be sought without a legal right. Such a right must be judicially enforceable as well as legally protected. In this connection, reference has been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mani Subrat Jain and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Ors 1 wherein at para 9 it has been held as under:

'The High Court rightly dismissed the petitioners. it is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something (See Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol. I. paragraph 122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors (1) Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors (2) and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies.' The appellant has not been able to demonstrate any legal right, much less any judicially enforceable right. Therefore, no cause for interference is made out. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to file Public Interest Limitation, if so advised."

1 (1977) 1 SCC 486 4

6. Since it is stated that the relief claimed in this Writ Petition and the relief sought in W.P.No.3102 of 2023 is one and the same and in view of disposal of W.A.No.1148 of 2023, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief as sought for.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J 1st May 2024 RRB