Dr R.Vivekananda Gopal v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Recording the above said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 16, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
3. Dravidian University, Srinivasavanam, Kuppam, Chittoor District-517426, Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Registrar. ...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus (a) (HR.IV-FR) Department dated 18.06.2016 is not applicable to the petitioner and (b) declaring the action of the respondent no.3 in issuing proceedings vide No.DU/Estt/E2/T-56/2016 dt. 16.01.2017 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of G.O.Ms.No.112 Declaring Finance the right to equality guaranteed to the petitioner under articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and quash the same and (c) direct the respondent no-3 to continue the petitioner in service up to 28.02.2019. lA NO: 1 OF 2017fWPMP 4965 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings vide No DU/Estt/ E2/T- 56/2016, dated 16.01.2017 issued by the respondent no.3 directing the respondent no.3 to continue the petitioner in service pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. S. RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI MUTHINENI KOTESWARA RAO SC FOR DRAVIDAN UNIVERSITY The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010095222017 r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 4134/2017 Between:
1.DR. R. VIVEKANANDA GOPAL, S/0 CAPT K. RAGHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF TAMIL AND TRANSLATION STUDIES, DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. KUPPAM, KUPPAM, R/0 ...PETITIONER
AND
1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL HIGHER SAIFABAD, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HYDERABAD. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, (UE), 2 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL (HR.IV-FR) GOVERNMENT, SAIFABAD, FINANCE TO SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD.
3.DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY, SRINIVASAVANAM, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517426, ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus (a) Declaring that G.O.Ms.No.112 Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department dated 18.06.2016 is not applicable to the petitioner and (b) declaring the action of the respondent no.3 in issuing proceedings vide "~^Nt5.DU/Estt/E2/T-56/2016 dt.16.01.2017 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the 2 right to equality guaranteed to the petitioner under articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and quash the same and (c) direct the respondent no 3 to continue the petitioner in service up to 28.02.2019 and pass such other order fit and proper in the facts and or orders as the Hon'ble court may deem it circumstances of the case. ' ■> lA NO: 1 OF 2017fWPMP 4965 OF 2017) in ,K circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings vide No DU/Estt/ E2/T-56/2016 dated 16.01.2017 issued by the respondent no.3 directing the respondent no^3 to continue the petitioner in service pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.PSRAJASEKHAR ' Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO
2. KOTESWARA RAO MUTHINENI (STANDING COUNSEL FOR DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY)
3.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) 4.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) The Court made the following
ORDER:
When the matter is Ms.A.Priyanka, learned counsel up for hearing, represented representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of the subsequent events, the writ petition become infructuous.
Operative part
2. Recording the above said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 3 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, SECTfpN OFFjpER
One CC to Sri P. S. Rajasekhar, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to [OPUC] Sri Muthineni Koteswara Rao, SC for Dravidian University
Two CCs to GP for Higher Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati [OUT]
Two CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati [OUT]
Two CD Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:27/06/2025 \ ORDER WP 4134/2017 ^ 7 OCT 2025 p v y? SgCtiOA^ y ''■^csaufisss^ DISMISSING THE W.P AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the above said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 16, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.