Koti John, vs Andhra University,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6930 AP

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          &
       HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                   WRIT APPEAL No.573 of 2022

                   (Hearing through physical mode)

  Koti John, S/o. late Kruparao, aged 64 years, Occ: Retired
  Professor, R/o.538, Andhra University Professors Quarters,
  Siripuram, Visakhapatnam
                                                 ... Appellant
                            Versus

  Andhra University, represented by its Registrar, Waltair Main
  Road, Visakhapatnam, and another
                                                 ... Respondents


  Counsel for the appellant      :      Mr. M. Pitchaiah

  Counsel for respondents        :      Mr. V. Sai Kumar

                               JUDGMENT

Dt.13.09.2022

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This intra-court appeal would call in question the order

dated 12.05.2022 passed by the learned single Judge

dismissing the petitioner's writ petition preferred for issuance of

a writ suspending the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in

U.E/A.U.SQC/Notice/2022-23 dated 13.04.2022 and to restore

the power and water supply to quarter No.5-38, Andhra

University Professors Quarters, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam.

                                 2                       HCJ & DVSS, J
                                                    W.A.No.573 of 2022

However, the learned single Judge has allowed two months' time

to the petitioner to vacate the subject quarter, further directing

the respondents-authorities to restore the power and water

supply to the subject quarter forthwith.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner

(appellant) and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner retired as Professor of the 2nd respondent-

University on 30.09.2020 on attaining the age of

superannuation. However, he was continuing in the subject

quarter allotted to him by the University while he was in service.

It was projected in the writ petition that petitioner's wife is

working as a Teacher in the School of the University; therefore,

he requested to transfer the subject quarter in the name of his

wife, which was not considered and the University insisted him

to vacate the quarter and disconnected power and water supply

to the quarter on 30.04.2022.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner is not entitled to remain in

occupation of the quarter after his retirement on attaining the

age of superannuation. The writ petition is not preferred by

petitioner's wife, who is otherwise working as a Teacher in the

School of the University. The subject quarter has never been 3 HCJ & DVSS, J W.A.No.573 of 2022

allotted to petitioner's wife nor was there any proposal or

recommendation for such allotment. It seems, petitioner's wife

is not an employee of the University, but she is working in a

School of the University. There is no material that petitioner's

wife was appointed by the University. Even otherwise, a

Teacher in a School cannot be compared with a Professor of a

University. It is not the case of the petitioner that his wife is

entitled to the same or similar quarter on the basis of her

employment as a Teacher in a School of the University. In the

absence of any such right or entitlement, the petitioner cannot

be allowed to continue to occupy the subject quarter and the

learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

5. The writ appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly

dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

             Sd/-                               Sd/-

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ              D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J

MRR