Telangana High Court
WA/2574/2005 of Dr. L.C. Obulesu, Vs Dr. M. SRirama Krishna Prasad, on 28 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT APPEAL NO.2574 OF 2005. DATED: 28-12-2005 Between Dr.L.C.Obulesu son of Obaiah, Aged 51 yrs, Professor and Head Of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool. ….Appellant And
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT APPEAL NO.2574 OF 2005.
DATED: 28-12-2005
Between
Dr.L.C.Obulesu son of Obaiah,
Aged 51 yrs, Professor and HeadOf the Department of ForensicMedicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool.
And
….Appellant
1. Dr.M.Srirama Krishna Prasad, son ofVenkateswara Rao, 53 yrs, Working asProfessor of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool and 3 others.
…Respondents
JUDGMENT(Per the Hon’ble B.Prakash Rao, J)
Heard both sides and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken upfor disposal.
The appellant herein is the 4[t h ]respondent against whom an interimdirection has been given by the learned single Judge in the writ petition filed bythe 1[st] respondent herein inter alia challenging the action of the University incontinuing the appellant herein in the post especially when he is having aPostgraduate degree from the University which is not recognized.
The main ground urged in this case is Postgraduate degree obtained byboth parties are not from the recognized universities. However, having regardto the rules and regulations and according to the writ petitioner-1[st] respondent,the appellant is not entitled to continue in service. The learned single Judgehaving found that the Postgraduate degree obtained by the appellant is not fromthe recognized university and therefore, gave a direction to the respondents 2to 4 herein not to permit the appellant to function as a Teacher/Examiner/Guidefor Postgraduate students and also directed the appellant not to function assuch, pending disposal of the writ petition.
It is represented by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for theUniversity that the decision was taken by the University itself vide proceedings,dated 16-09-2004 pursuant to the representations of the writ petitioner. It isseen from the proceedings, dated 16-09-2004, that the University afterconsidering the representations of the writ petitioner and in view of the practicaldifficulties that are likely to crop up, ordered to maintain status quo till a finaldecision is taken in the matter. Be that as it may, these are the matters, whichcan be decided in the main writ petition after final hearing rather than, at theinterlocutory stage by granting interim direction. Having regard to the nature ofthe controversy in the writ petition, we do not think it appropriate to continue theinterim order and therefore, liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the interim order, dated 05-10-2005, passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. Office is directed topost the main writ petition itself for final hearing subject to part heard on 06-02-2006 before the regular Court hearing the matters. No costs.
----------------------------
Dated: 28-12-2005.
Hsd
-------------------------------P.S.NARAYANA, J