The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court observed today that goings-on at the Andhra University (AU) were of grave concern..The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Ganga Rao was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Areti Uma Maheshwara Rao, alleging inaction by the government in the face of findings that pointed to large scale irregularities at the University between 2013 and 2016..The standing counsel for the Registrar of Andhra University today asked the Bench for a month’s time to begin implementing remedial measures suggested by the Dr. Venkataramana Committee. It was submitted that the same would have to be cleared by an Executive Council (EC), which includes the Principal Secretary, Finance and the Principal Secretary, Higher Education of the state government..Standing counsel Jyoti Prasad also told the Court that the two would have to be consulted on their availability. At this point, the Bench observed,.“Allegations of you turning a blind eye to all that is going on at the Andhra University is a matter of grave concern. It is only after we started monitoring that some action has been taken.”.The Bench went on to direct the standing counsel to come back to them with a date on which the EC would meet, after consulting the University’s Registrar by Monday, October 16. They also told the government pleader that his clients must attend the meeting on the date so fixed. The Bench added,.“If you find that your clients are stalling, we will call them to assist the court.”.During the last hearing on October 3, the Bench had asked both the Registrar of the University, as well as the Principal Secretary, Higher Education to file detailed affidavits on what action the University and the government had respectively taken vis-a-vis the Venkataramana Committee recommendations. .The Committee, which is the second of two government-appointed committees, had found large scale irregularities committed by former Vice Chancellor Dr. GSN Raju during his term in office between 2013 and 2016, and had recommended that the government hold all appointments and other administrative decisions made by him in abeyance..The Principal Secretary, Higher Education had filed an affidavit saying that the government had accepted the Committee’s report in toto and that they had directed the University to act on the same. The standing counsel for the University had said that the decisions of the former Vice-Chancellor had indeed been kept in abeyance as of Tuesday, October 3. However, this fact was debated by counsel for the petitioner PV Krishnaiah..The standing counsel’s affidavit submitted today relied on a document dated February 11, 2016, which had held in abeyance 33 appointments made on February 9, 2016, in keeping with the Committee’s recommendations..Krishnaiah, however, said that this was a clear attempt to mislead the Court. He stated that these appointments could not have been made by the Vice-Chancellor in question as he had demitted office on February 4, 2016. He also went on to say that Raju had made over 400 appointments during his tenure, not just 33..The Court then asked the standing counsel what he had to say. He responded by saying that these 33 appointments were made at the behest of Raju by the Principal of the University Engineering College, and hence were held in abeyance. Krishnaiah disputed this claim..When asked what action had been taken in furtherance of other recommendations, exactly how many appointments had been made and how many were now in abeyance, Prasad said that he would have to take instructions from his client..The Court then directed him to furnish the number of those appointed, along with their names, along with a summary of the action taken in each individual case by Monday, October 16..Krishnaiah argued that dishonesty by the Registrar pointed towards his involvement in the wrong-doings, to which the Court asked what the Committee had found. When informed that the Committee had cleared him, they urged patience and said that the priority now lay in making sure there was proper implementation of the Committee’s recommendations..The Bench stated that question on whether Committee conducted a comprehensive enquiry, and whether certain aspects warranted a more detailed investigation, could be looked into later.
The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court observed today that goings-on at the Andhra University (AU) were of grave concern..The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Ganga Rao was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Areti Uma Maheshwara Rao, alleging inaction by the government in the face of findings that pointed to large scale irregularities at the University between 2013 and 2016..The standing counsel for the Registrar of Andhra University today asked the Bench for a month’s time to begin implementing remedial measures suggested by the Dr. Venkataramana Committee. It was submitted that the same would have to be cleared by an Executive Council (EC), which includes the Principal Secretary, Finance and the Principal Secretary, Higher Education of the state government..Standing counsel Jyoti Prasad also told the Court that the two would have to be consulted on their availability. At this point, the Bench observed,.“Allegations of you turning a blind eye to all that is going on at the Andhra University is a matter of grave concern. It is only after we started monitoring that some action has been taken.”.The Bench went on to direct the standing counsel to come back to them with a date on which the EC would meet, after consulting the University’s Registrar by Monday, October 16. They also told the government pleader that his clients must attend the meeting on the date so fixed. The Bench added,.“If you find that your clients are stalling, we will call them to assist the court.”.During the last hearing on October 3, the Bench had asked both the Registrar of the University, as well as the Principal Secretary, Higher Education to file detailed affidavits on what action the University and the government had respectively taken vis-a-vis the Venkataramana Committee recommendations. .The Committee, which is the second of two government-appointed committees, had found large scale irregularities committed by former Vice Chancellor Dr. GSN Raju during his term in office between 2013 and 2016, and had recommended that the government hold all appointments and other administrative decisions made by him in abeyance..The Principal Secretary, Higher Education had filed an affidavit saying that the government had accepted the Committee’s report in toto and that they had directed the University to act on the same. The standing counsel for the University had said that the decisions of the former Vice-Chancellor had indeed been kept in abeyance as of Tuesday, October 3. However, this fact was debated by counsel for the petitioner PV Krishnaiah..The standing counsel’s affidavit submitted today relied on a document dated February 11, 2016, which had held in abeyance 33 appointments made on February 9, 2016, in keeping with the Committee’s recommendations..Krishnaiah, however, said that this was a clear attempt to mislead the Court. He stated that these appointments could not have been made by the Vice-Chancellor in question as he had demitted office on February 4, 2016. He also went on to say that Raju had made over 400 appointments during his tenure, not just 33..The Court then asked the standing counsel what he had to say. He responded by saying that these 33 appointments were made at the behest of Raju by the Principal of the University Engineering College, and hence were held in abeyance. Krishnaiah disputed this claim..When asked what action had been taken in furtherance of other recommendations, exactly how many appointments had been made and how many were now in abeyance, Prasad said that he would have to take instructions from his client..The Court then directed him to furnish the number of those appointed, along with their names, along with a summary of the action taken in each individual case by Monday, October 16..Krishnaiah argued that dishonesty by the Registrar pointed towards his involvement in the wrong-doings, to which the Court asked what the Committee had found. When informed that the Committee had cleared him, they urged patience and said that the priority now lay in making sure there was proper implementation of the Committee’s recommendations..The Bench stated that question on whether Committee conducted a comprehensive enquiry, and whether certain aspects warranted a more detailed investigation, could be looked into later.
