Dharavath Yugandhar, vs The University Grants Commission Ugc
2025 Latest Caselaw 5293 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dharavath Yugandhar, vs The University Grants Commission Ugc on 3 September, 2025

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                               AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN


                       I.A.No.1 of 2025
                             in/and
                  WRIT APPEAL No.975 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Ms. G.R.Mercy Vijaya, representing

learned counsel Ms. A.V.S.Laxmi, appears for the

appellant.

Sri M.P.Kashyap, learned Standing Counsel for

University Grants Commission, appears for respondent

No.1.

Learned counsel Sri K.Sai Varun, representing

M/s. Indus Law Firm, appears for respondents No.2 and 3.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The writ appeal is directed against the judgment

rendered in W.P.No.14874 of 2023, dated 16.10.2023,

whereby the learned writ court, while refusing to allow the

claim for regularisation of the appellant, who is the writ

petitioner, directed respondent No.2 to re-engage the

services of the appellant forthwith and continue his

services till the end of tenure of the scheme.

4. The appellant was re-engaged, but his engagement

has been terminated with effect from 01.04.2025.

Therefore, he seeks to challenge the impugned judgment of

the learned writ court now, which has resulted in a delay of

603 days for condonation of which I.A.No.1 of 2025 has

been filed.

5. We find that there is no explanation worth its name

in the short affidavit filed for condonation of delay, except

that it says that if the delay is not condoned, the appellant

would be put to irreparable loss and injury. The appellant,

it seems, has acquiesced to the direction passed by the

learned writ court and upon termination of his

re-engagement chosen to challenge it. Therefore, it may be

a new cause of action, but this is not a sufficient

explanation to condone the delay.

6. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

______________________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

03.09.2025 vs