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
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
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
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
