lvleohdeeoSah.S/o:RatanKumarSaha v. 1. The English and

2015, as violating my Fundamental Rights enshrined under Articles 14, 19,20 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and quash the same and further reinstate the admission of the Petilioner in Ph.D. programme in campus of 2nd Respondent vide No EFLU-RC-LKO/Acad .lF -1 01 6120241235. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceeding dated 1911112024 issued by 4th Respondent during pending disposal of this Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s;upport of the petition, the High Court may be oleased to direct the 1st Respondent to reinstate my Ph.D. admission in the campus of 2nd Respondent. CounseI for the Petitioner: SRI SAI TEJA KAMBALAPALLY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P. S. RAJASEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER . THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K'LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.3 5854 OF 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri Sai Teja Kambalapally' Iearned counse[ for petittoner' Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of 4'h respondent in passing the recommendations dated lg'll'2024 to expel and strike off the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the institution' including denial of re-admission, as per Regulation l0(2)(c) of the University Grants Commission (Prevention' Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions)Regulations, 2015 ( hereinafter called as'Regulations' 20t5') for which necessary orders may be issued by the University Administration, and also holding that the (lntemat Complaints C6mmittee (lCC) also recommends that the knowledge of this matter involving the petitioner be kept in notice of the Proctor's O lf-rce of the University and the Examination Section for prospective action' as illegal and in violation of the order dated O4'll'2024 in W'P'No'29304 ot

2024. )

3. [t is r,:levant to note that the petitioner herein has filed a writ petition vide W P.No.29304 of 2024 chaltenging the suspension order dated 20.09.2024 suspending the petitioner from the university. Vide order dated 04 11.2024, this Court while setting aside the order dated

20.09.2024 including the inquiry report dated 19.09.2.024, granted liberty to the respondenrs to initiate fresh action by strictly following the procedure laid under the Regulations, 2015, more particularly, Regulation No.tl of the Regulations, 2015, within a period of fifteen (15) days frorn the, date of receipt of a copy of this order. 'till then, the petitioner is no. entitled access to the respondent campus. It was also made clear that the petitioner shall co-operate with respondent No.3 in concluding thc inquiry.

4. [n con pliance with the said order, 4th respondent has passed impugned rec.mmendations dated rg.lr.2o24 to expel the petitioner and to strike ofF his name lrom the rolls of the institution inctuding denial of re-adrnission. Feeling aggrieved by the said recomrnendations, the petitioner herein has already preflerred an appeal date<l 20.rr.2024 with the vice (lhancellor of University/l't respondent - appeilate authority. The sa nre is pending. i The pt:tirioner conrends that while passing the impugned recomm.n(ation dated 19. I I 2024. 4,r, respondent did no: foltow the ta,. ,. ,, I 3 principtes ofnaturaljustice and also the procedure laid under Regulation No.g and t2 of Regulations, 2015. He has already preferred appeal against the said recommendations. Therefore, he has to pursue the said appeal. He has to raise all the grounds/contentions which he has raised in the present writ petition, in the said appeal' The petitioner cannot pursue the parallel remedies.

6. In the light of the same, this writ petition is disposed of directing the I't respondent/Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned recommendations dated lg.ll.2l24 strictty in accordance with law and procedure laid down under Regulation Nos. 8 and 12 of Regulations' 2015' within ftfteen (15) days from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order' Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to raise all the grounds/contentions which he raised in the present writ petition, in the appeal and it is for the appellate authority to consider. In the circumstances of the case' there is no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any' pending in this w r t petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T ASSISTANT .JA ASREE STRAR SECTION FFICER /'o,,. rhe Vice chanceilor, -rh:^,Els,r:I :+r+*t';*:f$trs';x1r#ft "' uni'ersitv' HYderabad' ^To"rE",1?,':S.ht19;33,-",i#i'd5ooz q::H["-i4*!?;ffi i, i TJ MP

4. The . Presiding Officer, lnternal Complaints Commrttee, The Engttsn anct Foreign Languages University, Hydera6ad. I. Qn" 991o 9r! Sai Teja Kamtiatapaily, Advocate tOpUCl 9. 9n" QQ !o Sf P. S. Rajasekhar, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies I o-. HIGH COURT I I DATED:0710112025 ORDER WP.No.35854 of 2024 g SIAT € ? t. :) ._) o 0 I lll[f, ?'i'J5 ) + .:C, O I I nar'* DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS id-