Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Prof.R.Sudarsana Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No. 14171 OF 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No NOTE.
DVSS,J
20.07.2021
Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government
Pleader for Higher Education appearing for R1
and R3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues
that the petitioner was appointed on
25.7.2018 and has been discharging his
duties as Vice Chancellor in Vikrama
Simhapuri University, Nellore and that by the
impugned order, dated 14.5.2021 his
appointment was rescinded.
Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the
petitioner points out that without any notice
and in total violation of the rules of natural
justice, the appointment was cancelled. Apart
from that he points out that the order in
W.P.(PIL) No.169 of 2019, which is referred to
in the impugned order has also been
suspended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in SLP No.6941 of 2021. He refers to the
order dated 28.5.2021 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said SLP. He submits
that as the impugned judgment itself is
stayed, the order issued on 14.5.2021 also
cannot have any legs to stand. He also argues
that pursuant to the stay granted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent in the
PIL (Vice Chancellor of JNTU) and the party
whose appointment was challenged was also
reinstated into service. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the petitioner prays for an interim
order.
Learned Government Pleader for Higher
Education argues that although a stay was
granted the principle that the Division Bench
has enunciated has not been set aside and he
submits that the appointment of the petitioner
is contrary to the principles laid down by the
Division Bench. He also argues that the
petitioner filed an application to implead
himself in the Special Leave Petition No.694 of
2021, which was rejected by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. He argues that the very same
grounds herein were raised in the implead
petition. Therefore, it is his contention that
the petitioner cannot file the present writ
petition and urge the same grounds again.
After considering the submissions made
by both parties, this Court is prima facie of
opinion that the petitioner has made out a
case for interference by this Court at this
stage. Whether the application for
impleadment of the present petitioner
precludes him from agitating his rights or not
requires to be examined at greater length. In
addition, the Vice Chancellor of JNTU is
reinstated in service in view of the stay
granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
petitioner who is not a party to the said PIL is
suffering due to the present order only
because of the findings of the Division Bench.
The party involved in the PIL is himself
reinstated. Lastly, no notice was issued before
the impugned order was passed. Hence, this
Court is of the prima facie opinion that the
petitioner also deserves an order as prayed
for. Therefore, there shall be a suspension of
G.O.Ms.No.28 (Higher Education (U.E.)
Department), dated 14.5.2021 for a period of
three (3) weeks i.e., till 10.8.2021.
In this period, learned counsel for the
petitioner is permitted to take out personal
notice to R2, R5 and R6 by registered post
with acknowledgment due and file proof of
service in the Registry.
Print the name of Ms.Parnitha, learned
counsel for R4.
List the matter on 10.8.2021.
________
DVSS,J
Note:
Issue C.C. today
B/o
GR
