Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

1. The Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. 16638 and 30445 of 2021 have been filed by Prof. K. Ratna Shiela Mani, while the writ petition in W.P. No. 19108 of 2020 has been filed by Ms. Parchuri Kumari and Sri Bandela Nasarjee, students of Nagarjuna University.

2. W.P. No. 19108 of 2020 has been filed questioning the action of the respondents in appointing Prof. Patteti Rajasekhar/6th respondent as Full Additional Charge to the position of Vice Chancellor respondent University and further contemplating to appoint him as Regular Vice Chancellor of the University.

3. W.P. No. 16638 of 2021 has been filed to declare the inaction of the Government in taking action against Prof. Patteti Rajasekhar/4th respondent in pursuance of the report submitted by Sri Chakrapani IAS (Retd.) and continuing him as Vice Chancellor while conducting further enquiry constituting enquiry committee headed by Prof. K. Nirupa Rani.

4. W.P. No. 30445 of 2021 has been filed to declare the G.O. Rt. No. 291, Higher Education (U.E) Department, dated 23.11.2021 issued by the Government dropping the allegations levelled against Prof. Patteti Rajasekhar/6th respondent basing on the resolution of the Executive Council to drop the charges against Prof. Patteti Rajasekhar/6th respondent and further to declare that the Executive Council of the University has no authority to resolve to drop the charges levelled against the said Prof. Patteti Rajasekhar/6th respondent in light of the findings recorded in the Enquiry Reports submitted by Sri D. Chakrapani Committee and Prof. K. Nirupa Rani Committee, as null and void.

5. In essence, these writ petitions have been filed questioning the appointment of Prof. Patteti Rajasekhar as FAC Vice-Chancellor of Sri Acharya Nagarjuna University and to take action against him as per the reports submitted by the Committees and further questioning the action of the Executive Council and the Government in dropping the allegations against him.

6. Since the relief sought for by the petitioners in these writ petitions is almost similar and the petitions are founded on identical and similar set of averments, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

7. As per pleadings, by the time of filing W.P. No. 19108 of 2020 and W.P. No. 16638 of 2021, enquiry by Prof. K. Nirupa Rani Committee was in progress and the said committee has submitted its report subsequent to filing of the above writ petitions, thereafter the Executive Council of the University has resolved to drop the allegations against Prof. Patteti Rajasekhar and communicated the same to the Government and pursuantly the Government have dropped all the charges against Prof. Patteti Rajasekhar and aggrieved by the same the petitioner in W.P. No. 16638 of 2021 viz., Prof. K. Ratna Shiela Mani, has filed W.P. No. 30445 of 2021.

8. Since the Writ petition in W.P. No. 30445 of 2021 has been filed later to the other writ petitions and the same being conclusive and covers all the allegations levelled against Prof. Patteti Rajasekhar in other two writ petitions, to avoid repetition, the contents of the writ petition in W.P. No. 30445 of 2021 alone are extracted since the same serves the purpose.

9. The parties hereinafter will be referred to with their status as per W.P. No. 30445 of 2021 and the petitioners in W.P. No. 19108 of 2020 hereinafter will be referred to as 'the students of the University'.

10. The Writ Petition in W.P. No. 30445 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner Prof. Koppula Ratna Shiela Mani to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring G.O. Rt. No. 291, Higher Education (U.E) Department, dated 23.11.2021, issued by the 1st respondent herein, thereby dropping the allegations levelled against the 6th respondent herein as per the resolution of Executive Counsel of the 4th respondent University, set aside the same, as illegal, arbitrary in violation of the findings recorded in the Enquiry report submitted by Sri D. Chakrapani Committee dated 27.01.2017, pursuant to G.O. Rt. No. 221, Higher Education (UE) Department dated 30.09.2016 and Enquiry Report submitted by Prof. K. Nirupa Rani Committee in Lr. No. IC-ANU-GO 83/2021, dated 13.09.2021, pursuant to G.O. Rt. No. 83, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 31.05.2021 and consequently declare that the Executive Council of the 4th respondent herein has no authority to resolve to drop all the charges levelled against the 6th respondent herein and direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to implement the Enquiry Report submitted by K. Nirupa Rani Committee in Lr. No. IC-ANU-GO 83/2021, dated 13.09.2021, forthwith.

11. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was selected and appointed as Assistant Professor in the 4th respondent University on 22.08.1988 and she was later promoted as professor on 22.08.2005 and she is the senior most woman professor in the 4th respondent University with 33 years of service and worked as Principal of the University College of Arts, Commerce & Law and presently she is working as Senior Professor, English Department and former Member of Executive council of the 4th respondent University and that she served as Head of Department of English, Chairperson, P.G. Board of Studies (English), Dean, Faculty of Humanities, Coordinator of Academic Affairs, presently Principal of University College of Arts, Commerce and Law and also Member of Executive Council of the 4th respondent University and hence she is eligible to be considered for the post of Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent University. The 6th respondent has joined in the 4th respondent University as a Reader in the year 2002 and served as Registrar of the University during the year 2014-2016. In the year 2016, serious allegations with regard to the functioning of the 4th respondent University by involving the former Vice Chancellors, former Registrars, former Directors of Centre for Distance Education and also the Staff, with regard to appointments, regularization etc., in respect of the 4th respondent University and that the said irregularities were reported in daily newspapers dated 01.05.2016, 02.05.2016, 03.05.2016 and 04.05.2016 and at that point of time the 6th respondent was working as Registrar of University during the period from 01.01.2015 to 19.03.2016 and has committed serious irregularities. It is the further case of the petitioner that taking serious note of the allegations levelled against the 4th respondent University, the Government have initially constituted an Enquiry Committee vide G.O. Rt. No. 121, High Education (UE) Department dated 01.06.2016, constituting a three Member Committee to conduct a detailed enquiry on to the allegations and however, due to the retirement of one of the members of the committee, the Government again reconstituted another Enquiry Committee vide G.O. Ms. No. 221, High Education (UE) Department, dated 30.09.2016, to conduct a detailed enquiry on the alleged irregularities reported in the Daily newspapers, with Sri D. Chakrapani, IAS Retd.), Director General, Andhra Pradesh Human Resources Development Institute, Prof. P. Vijayalakshmi, Registrar and Professor of Communication and Journalism, Sri Padmavathi Mahil Viswavidyalayam, Tirupati and Sri T.V. Krishna Murthy, Deputy Director and Former Secretary (FAC), Andhra Pradesh State Council of High Education and the said enquiry committee has submitted their report dated 27.01.2017 and the 4th respondent University in its Executive Council Meeting held on 23.01.2018 has approved the Enquiry Report and recommended for necessary action as against all the persons named in the said report including the 6th respondent, recording clear findings against the 6th respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent in the recent past also has informed the University to send the action taken report against the enquiry committee report submitted by Dr. Chakrapani, vide Letter No. 1264660/769/VC/A2/2020, dated 10.02.2021 and another letter No. 1264660/769/VC/A2/2020, dated 27.04.2021, however, without initiating any action in pursuance of the resolution passed by the 4th respondent University dated 23.01.2018, the 1st respondent herein has appointed the 6th respondent herein as Full Additional Charge to the position of Vice-Chancellor, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur, vide G.O. Rt. No. 177, Higher Education (U.E) Department, dated 04.11.2019 and he is continuing as such till date. It is the further case of the petitioner that she being a member of the Executive Council of the 4th respondent, addressed a letter dated 26.10.2020 to the 4th respondent regarding violation of procedure committed by the 6th respondent while making payment in respect of Guest Faculty in University Colleges contrary to the resolution of the Executive Council, requesting the 4th respondent to discuss the said issue in the next Executive Council meeting and again on 01.02.2021, she addressed a letter to the 4th respondent herein requesting to convene a special meeting of Executive Council to discuss about the misdeeds and financial irregularities committed by the 6th respondent as detailed in the said letter, however, no steps were taken in that regard by the 4th respondent and finally she made a representation to the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh dated 15.03.2021 complaining the irregularities committed by the 6th respondent herein and requesting not to appoint the 6th respondent to the position of Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent University and acting upon the said complaint dated 15.03.2021, the Government have issued G.O. Rt. No. 83, Higher Education (U.E) Department, dated 31.05.2021, constituting an Enquiry Committee with Dr. K. Nirupa Rani, Former Vice Chancellor, Adikavi Nannayya University as Chairman and Prof. A. Ananda Rao, Vice Chancellor, Rayalaseema University, Kurnool and Prof. Sri G. Kannam Das, Former Joint Secretary to Government, High Education Department, Member, to enquire into and submit their report under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991. It is further case of the petitioner that the said committee has submitted a Report in Lr. No. IC-ANU-GO 83/2021, dated 13.09.2021, with separate sheets regarding findings, observations and recommendations and also a brief summary of the Report to the Special Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Chairman and Secretary of Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education and in the said report most of the allegations made against the 6th respondent herein have been reported to be proved and specific findings were recorded and in view of the said findings, the 6th respondent has no right to continue as Vice Chancellor (FAC) of the 4th respondent University. It is further case of the petitioner that after issuing G.O. Rt. No. 83, dated 31.05.2021, the 1st respondent vide its letter No. 1397458/UE/A1/2021-2, dated 10.06.2021, ordered to put hold the further enquiry and challenging the said letter dated 10.06.2021, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 11673 of 2021 before this Court with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to take steps to complete the enquiry against the 6th respondent herein in terms of G.O. Rt. No. 83, dated 31.05.2021 and when the said writ petitioner came up for admission on 02.08.2021, the counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent has reported that the impugned letter dated 10.06.2021 has been withdrawn by the Government and hence the said writ petition was adjourned for filing Enquiry Report. It is further case of the petitioner that she also filed W.P. No. 16638 of 2021 before this Court declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 3 in not taking any disciplinary action against the 6th respondent pursuant of the Enquiry Report submitted by Sri D. Chakrapani committee dated 27.01.2017 and continuing the 6th respondent as Vice Chancellor (FAC) while conducting further enquiry in pursuance of G.O. Rt. No. 83, dated 31.05.2021 and consequently seeking a direction to remove the 6th respondent as Vice Chancellor (FAC) of the 4th respondent. It is further case of the petitioner that, one Parchuri Kumari and another, who were pursuing LLM Course and MBA course in the 4th respondent University by then, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 19108 of 2020 challenging G.O. Rt. No. 177, High Education (U.E) Department, dated 04.11.2019 and further contemplating to appoint the 6th respondent as regular Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent University. It is further case of the petitioner that in view of the observations made in the report dated 13.09.2021 as well as the Enquiry Report submitted by Sri D. Chakrapani, IAS (Retd.), dated 27.01.2017, the order issued in G.O. Rt. No. 177, Higher Education (U.E) Department, dated 04.11.2019, issued by the 1st respondent herein cannot be sustained and the 6th respondent herein has no locus standi to hold the post of incharge Vice Chancellor/vice chancellor of the 4th respondent University. It is the further case of the petitioner that when there are clear findings of serious irregularities committed by the 6th respondent herein as per the report submitted by Sri D. Chakrapani, IAS (Retd.), dated 27.01.2017 as well as the Report Submitted by Prof. K. Nirupa Rani Committee dated 13.09.2021, pursuant to the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Rt. No. 83, Higher Education (U.E) Department, dated 31.05.2021, the 1st respondent herein has issued the impugned proceedings vide G.O. Rt. No. 291, Higher Education (U.E) Department dated 23.11.2021, thereby dropping all the charges against the 6th respondent herein basing upon the resolution passed by the Executive Council of the 4th respondent and in the said proceedings it was stated that the Executive Council of the 4th respondent in its letter No. ANU/Legal Cell/Enquiry Committee/Views of the E/2021, dated 07.10.2021, after examining the Reports of the above Enquiry Committee, the Executive Council has found that all the allegations levelled against the 6th respondent by the petitioner herein, are not substantiated and accordingly the Executive Council has resolved to drop all the charges against the 6th respondent herein. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 6th respondent lacked highest level of integrity as he is involved in various illegal acts of omissions and commissions of grave nature in flagrant flouting of mandatory laws, regulations norms etc., to the serious loss and detriment to the interests and reputation of the 4th respondent University and in respect of which the two Enquiry Committees appointed in succession have proved and established that all the allegations against him beyond any shadow of doubt were proved and in such a case, the Executive Council of the 4th respondent cannot resolve to drop all the charges levelled against the 6th respondent herein and the 1st respondent cannot approve the said resolution by issuing the impugned proceedings vide G.O. Rt. No. 291, dated 23.11.2021. It is the further case of the petitioner that she has locus standi to file the writ petition and that a close examination of Dr. Chakrapani Committee report reveals that the 6th respondent lacks impeccable integrity and he is a person not possessing highest level of integrity as per the definition given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 5 SCC 242 [LQ/SC/2012/369] . It is the further case of the petitioner that the Executive Council of the 4th respondent has no power to resolve for dropping all the charges level against the 6th respondent by the petitioner, which has culminated in two Enquiry Reports and in such a case, the Executive Counsel of the 4th respondent has no authority to drop the charges levelled against the 6th respondent herein and if really the Government had no intention to initiate any action against the 6th respondent on the allegations levelled against him, there was no necessity at all to constitute two Enquiry Committees at the expenses of the University and invite Enquiry Reports in that regard and by the impugned orders the Government has bypassed both the Enquiry Reports in the matter and the same is highly arbitrary and illegal and hence the present writ petition have been filed.

12. The Writ Petition in W.P. No. 19108 of 2020 has been filed by the students of the University questioning G.O. Rt. No. 177, Higher Education (U.E) Department, dated 04.11.2019, inter alia, contending that the Executive Council, after discussing at length in its meeting dated 23.01.2018, has resolved to approve the Enquiry Committee report and while the things stood thus, the 6th respondent was appointed as incharge Vice Chancellor ignoring the fact that he has been facing serious allegations of impropriety and thus the same amounts to abuse and misuse of public authority. It is their further case that the 1st respondent has issued notifications dated 01.11.2019 and 27.01.2020 calling for applications to fill up the posts of vice chancellors and that the petitioners reliably learnt that the name of the 6th respondent has been considered and recommended for the post of Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent and despite the representations made by the petitioners dated 23.09.2020 to the respondents 2 and 3 herein, no action was initiated and on the other hand the respondents are proceedings to appoint the 6th respondent as regular Vice-Chancellor, giving a complete goby to the report submitted by the Committee headed by Dr. Chakrapani and the decision taken by the Executive Council. Hence, the students are constrained to file this Writ Petition.

13. Resisting the claim made by the petitioner, the Registrar of the 4th respondent University has filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petition, inter alia contending that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is no pleading that the petitioner is also applicant for the post of Vice-Chancellor and in the absence of the said pleading no cause of action arise to maintain the writ petition and even otherwise the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ and there is no pleading regarding violation of her rights or interest. It is further the case of the 4th respondent that the press reports did not have any evidentiary value as per the settled law. The Executive Council in its meeting held on 23.1.2018 has resolved to approve the report in the form of views/observation of Dr. Chakrapani enquiry committee and it has further resolved that the Vice-Chancellor is authorized to initiate action within purview of the University Administration basing on the recommendation of the Committee constituted for that purpose, to refer the issues to the Government wherever it is specially pointed out which are not under the purview of the University and the Vice-Chancellor is authorized to appoint an enquiry officer wherever it is specifically needed. Subsequently the matter was placed in the Executive Council meeting for its consideration and to obtain views of the Executive Council to send to the Government in its meeting held on 28.10.2020 and the Executive Council in its meeting held on 28.10.2020 has discussed the matter and resolved to further continue the discussion in the subsequent EC meetings. The matter was again placed before the Executive Council meeting on 01.07.2021 for its consideration and to offer its views. The Executive Council has resolved under Item No. 3.1 & 3.2 that after deliberating over the issue at length, the Executive Council has resolved to submit these matters to Dr. K. Nirupama Rani Committee. Subsequently, the Executive Counsel of the respondent university at its meeting held on 20.09.2021 has made the resolution against the allegation on the Vice- Chancellor (FAC) resolving that the allegation will not sustain as it did not find any fault with the Vice Chancellor i.e. the 6th respondent and resolved to place the matter before it in its next meting, wherein, on 07.02.2022, it was resolved that the said allegations against the Vice-Chancellor in the matter are dropped and further resolved to report the same to the Government for kind perusal. The Government on receipt of the views of the Executive Council in its meeting held on 20.09.2021 and 07.02.2022 has resolved to drop the allegations and further the Government continued the 6th respondent as the Vice-Chancellor (FAC) from 04.11.2019 to till date considering his highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment. The petitioner has suppressed the facts provided in the detailed enquiry committee report of Prof. K. Nirupa Rani and she made an attempt with oblique motive to project certain false allegations against the 6th respondent particularly on point No. 6(c). It is further pleaded that, Section 8(2) of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 has empowered the Executive Council to provide its views on the enquiry committee report. Thus, there is no illegality in issuing the impugned G.O. and the same is issued duly following the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991. It is further stated that, the petitioner, for personal gain to malign the image of the respondent filed the writ petition with vexatious and frivolous allegations against the 6th respondent and the petitioner though filed the writ petition for mandamus has neither stated injury or hardship inflicted to her in respect of any act of this respondent nor established the same. Under the guise of the Executive Council Member, the petitioner has been in the habit of making false defamatory allegations and lodging frivolous & false complaints. It is further stated that keeping in view the academic excellence of the 6th respondent and the services rendered by him to the University, it is contended by the 4th respondent University that considering the administrative dynamism, the 6th respondent has been appointed as incharge Vice-Chancellor of the University. The writ petitions are motivated by personal grudge. The petitioner in the very attempt to prove that she is eligible for the post of Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent University has provided false information relating to her credentials and completely buried the credentials of the 6th respondent. The Enquiry Committee without jurisdiction and authority had travelled beyond its terms of reference given in the G.O. 121, dated 01.06.2016 in giving its findings. Dehors of that the enquiry was on the affairs of the University and there is no specific reference to any particular Officer of the University. It is further pleaded that, the findings of the enquiry committee are only recommendatory in nature and the same is placed before the different meetings of the Executive Council for obtaining its views on the findings of the enquiry committee report. The Executive Council as stated, after perusal of the explanation of the 6th respondent has viewed that the allegations against the 6th respondent are not substantiated by drawing power from Section 8(2) of the. It is further submitted that, no action was initiated by the 4th respondent against anyone including the 6th respondent. The appointment of the 6th respondent as FAC VC is purely the decision of the Government. Right from the day the 6th respondent was appointed as FAC VC, the petitioner has been burning with extreme states of Jealousy and envy, as the 6th respondent was the colleague in the same Department of English. The petitioner has been making series of complaints openly violating the code of conduct that the employees should essentially subscribe. The petitioner has made false allegations and make up them as irregularities committed by the 6th respondent in her representation dated 15.03.2021 given to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, which were viewed as not substantiated by the Executive Council basing on the explanation of the 6th respondent and after examining the matter in detail. It is further contended that, no legal right is vested to the petitioner to evaluate the competence of the 6th respondent and either to recommend or not to recommend to the position of the Vice-Chancellor. The enquiry committee report is not final and as per the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991, the competent authority found that the allegations against the vice-Chancellor are not substantiated. The petitioner suffers from the illusion that Chakrapani Committee and Prof. K. Niruparani Committee found fault with the 6th respondent. It is further stated that, despite the fact that the committee reports were examined and discussed by the Executive Council thoroughly before dropping the charges against the 6th respondent, completely obsessed by jealousy and envy, the petitioner finds fault with the G.O.291 issued by the Higher Education. The Executive Council meetings were conducted as per the procedure. In fact, these were the complaints made by her and the inquiry committee has examined these aspects thoroughly. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the views expressed by the Executive Council, the remedy available to her is as provided under Section 13(5) of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 by preferring an appeal to the Chancellor. There is no illegality in issuing the impugned G.O. and the same is issued duly following the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991, the petitioner has completely ignored the detailed enquiry reports of Sri D. Chakarapani Committee and prof. K. Nirupa Rani committee, the origin enquiry committee report of the retired District Judge, resolution of the Executive Council finding no fault with the Vice-Chancellor, i.e. the 6th respondent and its final resolutions dated 20.09.2021 and 07.02.2022. Hence prayed to vacate the interim orders dated 07.01.2022 passed in W.P. No. 30445 of 2021 and consequently dismiss all the three writ petitions.

14. The contents of the counter filed by the 6th respondent are similar to the counter filed by the 4th respondent and hence they are not reproduced. The 6th respondent has contended that the petitioner, envious of his academic excellence, has resorted to giving false complaints against him to the authorities and she has started filing number of writ petitions with false, frivolous and untenable allegations.

15. The petitioner in W.P. No. 30445 of 2021 has filed reply affidavit contending that Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act 1991 (Act 4 of 1991) deals with inspection and enquiry by the State Government in respect of the matters specifically provide under Sub-Section 1 of Section 8 and in which nothing was stated about any action to be initiated against the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The powers of the Executive Council was stated at Section 19 of theand the powers of the Vice-Chancellor was stated at Section 13 of theand under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, the Government shall constitute a search committee consisting of (1) a nominee of the Executive Council, (ii) a nominee of the University Grants Commission, and (iii) a nominee of the state Government. When an enquiry was ordered by the Government and in fact such enquiry was conducted and report was submitted to the University sustaining certain allegations made against the 6th respondent herein, the Executive Council of the University has no power to take a different view on such allegations which are proved to be sustained as per the enquiry report, basing upon the convenient explanation submitted by the 6th respondent mainly targeting the Telugu Desam party, which is highly objectionable and such explanation ought not to have been accepted by the Executive Council. Except making political allegations against the opposition party with an intention to get sympathy from the ruling party, the 6th respondent has not submitted any valuable or just explanation to the allegations/charges which are sustained by the Enquiry committee of Dr. K. Niruparani Committee and the report submitted by Dr. Chakrapani Committee. It is further stated that with regard to locus standi of the writ petitioner to file the present writ petition, the contention of the 6th respondent that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition is unfounded and made with an intention to mislead the Court. In view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. K. Niruparani, the 6th respondent lacks highest level of integrity as detailed under Section 12 of the. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.

16. Heard Smt. Shanthi Sree, learned counsel, representing Sri Venkat Chalasani and Sri Ajay Kumar Chalasani, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 19108 of 2020 and 30445 of 2021 respectively, Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 16638 of 2021, learned Additional Advocate General for University and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for 6th and 4th respondents respectively.

17. (i) Smt. Shanthi Sree, learned counsel, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit has contended that the petitioner being the senior most woman professor in the University with 33 years of service and having worked as Head of Departments and Registrar of the University, is eligible to be appointed as Vice Chancellor of the University and without considering her candidature appointing the 6th respondent against whom enquiries have been conducted finding him guilty of various allegations, is illegal. It is her further contention that for being appointed as Vice Chancellor of a University the appointee must possess highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment and the 6th respondent lacks the above qualities and he is not entitled to be appointed as such.

(ii) It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to serious allegations regarding functioning of the University in respect of appointments, regularization etc., published in newspapers against various officers of the University when the 6th respondent was working as Registrar of the University, the Government have constituted three member committee comprising Sri D. Chakrapani and the said enquiry committee submitted its report recording clear findings against the 6th respondent and recommended action and despite the same the 6th respondent has been appointed as Vice Chancellor (FAC) and on the representations made by the petitioner, the Government have constituted another enquiry committee with Prof. K. Nirupa Rani and others and the said committee has recorded that most of the allegations made against the 6th respondent have been proved and thus, the 6th respondent cannot be continued as incharge Vice-Chancellor of the university.

(iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Enquiry Committees against the 6th respondent and contended that the Enquiry Committees appointed by the Government have recommended for initiation of disciplinary action against the 6th respondent for committing irregularities and misuse of powers and despite of such categorical findings recorded against the 6th respondent, the action of the Executive Council, which has no power or authority, in passing a resolution dropping the allegations leveled against the 6th respondent and consequent action of the Government in issuing G.O. Rt. No. 291, dated 23.11.2021 dropping the allegations leveled against the 6th respondent bypassing enquiry reports is highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committees and the same warrants interference of this Court and prayed to allow the writ petition.

18. Sri Korrapati Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 16638 of 2021 in further elaboration to what has been stated by Smt. Shanthi Sree, learned counsel, has contended that the Executive Council went beyond its power and authority in resolving to drop the charges and the same warrants interference of this Court.

19. (i) On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petitions since no averment regarding violation of her rights or interest is made in the petition and moreover she is not an applicant for the post of Vice -Chancellor and submitted that the writ filed for mandamus is not maintainable.

(ii) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing the facts provided in the detailed enquiry reports and made allegations based on the summary sheet of the report.

(iii) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that the petitioner in utter ignorance of the powers of the Executive Council and the Government under the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991 and having been completely obsessed by jealousy and envy filed these writ petitions with the sole aim of tarnishing the image of the 6th respondent as well as the University.

(iv) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that the Enquiry Committees have been appointed to enquire into the allegations published in newspapers and it is a settled law that press reports will not have any evidentiary value and the adverse findings, if any, given by the Enquiry Committees based on news articles have no sanctity in the eye of law.

(v) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committees are only recommendatory in nature and as per Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991, the Executive Council alone is competent to take decision on the findings recorded in the Enquiry reports and empowered by Section 11 of the Act, the Executive Council, having gone through the enquiry reports came to the conclusion that the allegations made against the 6th respondent are not substantiated and the allegations do not sustain and thus the Executive Council acted in accordance with the and there is neither procedural irregularity nor impropriety warranting interference of this Court.

(vi) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that taking into consideration the academic excellence and administrative skills exhibited by the 6th respondent besides his high level integrity and commitment towards the institution, the 6th respondent has been appointed as the incharge for the position of Vice-Chancellor and the petitioner who is not even an applicant for the said post cannot question the same by filing the writ for mandamus.

(vii) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that the petitioner is accustomed of making allegations against her colleagues violating the code of conduct and filing the present writ petitions is one such attempt and these writ petitions are filed only to wreck vengeance against the 6th respondent as well as the University.

(viii) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that reference of the enquiry was confined to examine the allegations relating to the appointments, regularization and payment of salaries. During the tenure of the 6th respondent as Registrar, no appointments are made through direct recruitment and there is no regularization of the staff. With regard to payment of salaries, the 6th respondent did not commit any irregularity, however, the enquiry committee went beyond its ambit and scope and made unnecessary remarks.

(ix) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that the writ petition filed by the students of the University is highly motivated and the same was filed for extraneous reasons and nowhere the students aver that they had suffered legal grievance on account of the appointment of the 6th respondent as incharge Vice Chancellor of the University and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

(x) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that as per Section 8 of the Act, the enquiry committee report is not final and as per the statutory procedure the matter shall be decided by the Executive Council and thus there is no procedural irregularity amenable for judicial review and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.

20. In view of the pleadings and the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the parties, the admitted facts in these cases are that the 6th respondent worked as Registrar of the University from 01.01.2015 to 19.03.2016. Basing on the news articles published in daily newspapers against various persons with regard to appointments, regularization in respect of the 4th respondent university, the Government have initially constituted an Enquiry Committee vide G.O. Rt. No. 121, High Education (UE) Department dated 01.06.2016, constituting a three Member Committee to conduct a detailed enquiry on to the allegations levelled against the authorities of the University and later in view of retirement of one of the members, the Government have issued G.O. Ms. No. 221, High Education (UE) Department, dated 30.09.2016 constituting Sri D. Chakrapani committee to conduct a detailed enquiry on the alleged irregularities reported in the Daily newspapers, and the said enquiry committee have submitted their report dated 27.01.2017 and later the Government have issued G.O. Rt. No. 83, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 31.05.2021 constituting Dr. K. Nirupa Rani Enquiry Committee to enquire into the allegations leveled against the 6th respondent by the petitioner and the said Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 13.09.2021. The Executive Council of the respondent University upon considering the explanation submitted by the 6th respondent has made the resolution to drop the allegations as it did not find any fault with the 6th respondent.

21. According to the petitioner, when the Enquiry Committees constituted by the Government have submitted reports recording findings, observations and recommendations for initiation of disciplinary action against the 6th respondent, the Executive Council has no power or authority to resolve to drop the allegations against the 6th respondent.

22. The issue relating to the functions of enquiry committee and punishing authority has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions.

23. In Kunganimalepcha and others v. State of Sikkim and others (2010) 4 SCC 513, [LQ/SC/2010/308] the Hon'ble Apex Court at para-18 held thus:

"18. Hence it is our conclusion that the petitioners' prayer cannot be granted. This Court cannot sit in judgment over whether investigations should be launched against politicians for alleged acts of corruption. The Supreme Court of India functions as a constitutional court as well as the highest appellate court in the country. If the Supreme Court gives direction for prosecution, it would cause serious prejudice to the accused, as the direction of this Court may have far-reaching persuasive effect on the court which may ultimately try the accused. It is always open to the petitioners to approach the investigative agencies directly with the incriminating materials and it is for the investigative agencies to decide on the further course of action. While we can appreciate the general claim that the efforts to uncover the alleged acts of corruption may be obstructed by entrenched interests, in this particular case the petitioners would be well advised to rely on the statutory remedies. It is only on the exhaustion of ordinary remedies that perhaps a proceeding can be brought before a writ court and in any case the High Court of Sikkim would be a far more appropriate forum for examining the allegations made in the present petition."

24. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha 2009 (8) SCC, 310, at paga-15, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:

"15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. In the instant case, the High Court fell into grave error in scanning the evidence as if it was a court of appeal. The approach of the High Court in consideration of the matter suffers from manifest error and, in our thoughtful consideration, the matter requires fresh consideration by the High Court in accordance with law. On this short ground, we send the matter back to the High Court."

25. In State of A.P. V.S. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723 [LQ/SC/1963/105] , at para-7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"7........ The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence......"

26. In catena of decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in State of West Bengal and others v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571, [LQ/SC/2010/209] has clearly held that the function clearly lies in the domain of the executive and it is up to the investigating agencies themselves to decide whether the material produced before them provides a sufficient basis to launch an investigation

27. In R. Sukuraram V. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, Madras, it has been held that the report of the enquiry officer is not binding on the disciplinary authority.

28. It is well settled that the report of the enquiry officer is not binding upon the disciplinary authority. It is also well settled law that disciplinary authority is the final authority to pass an order of punishment.

29. It is an established principle of law that Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not an appellate authority and cannot go into the adequacy or reliability of the evidence on which the punishing authority has acted.

30. In view of the rival contentions of the parties regarding competence or otherwise of the Executive Council to pass resolution, it is relevant to go through the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act.

31. Section-8 of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 deals with 'Inspection and inquiry'. For benefit, the same is extracted hereunder:

"8. Inspection and inquiry. - (1) The Government shall have the right to cause an inspection to be made by such person or persons as it may direct of the University, its buildings, laboratories, libraries, museums, workshops and equipment and of any institutions maintained by or affiliated to the University and also to cause an inquiry to be made, into the teaching and other work conducted or done by the University in respect of any matter connected with the University. The Government shall in every case give notice to the University of its intention to cause such inspection or inquiry to be made and the University shall be entitled to be represented thereat.

(2) The Government shall forward to the Vice-Chance for a copy of the inspection report for obtaining the views of the Executive Council and on receipt of such views, the Government may tender such advice as they consider necessary and fix a time limit for action to be taken by the University.

(3) The Executive Council shall, within such time as the Government may fix report to them through the Vice-Chance for the action which has been taken or is proposed to be taken on the advice tendered by them.

(4) The Government may, where action has not been taken by the University to their satisfaction, within the time fixed and after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Executive Council issue such directions as they may think fit and the University shall comply with such directions."

32. Under Section 8(1) of the Act, 1991, the Government is competent to conduct enquiry on the affairs of the University. Section 8(2) of the Act, 1991 empowers the Executive Council to provide its views on the enquiry committee report and Section 8(4) of theempowers the Government to issue directions as they may think fit after considering the explanation furnished or representation made by the Executive Council.

33. Thus, the above provisions make it clear that the observations and recommendations made in the reports by the Enquiry Committee are not final and the Executive Council is empowered to offer their views on the findings given by the Enquiry committee and thereupon the Government may issue directions upon considering the views expressed by the Executive Council.

34. In the instant case, the Executive Council, which is empowered to express its views of the enquiry report under Section 8(2) of the Act, has expressed its views on the reports submitted by the Enquiries Committees to the effect that the allegations against the 6th respondent are not substantiated and accordingly intimated the Government. Pursuant to which, the Government have issued G.O. Rt. No. 291, dated 23.11.2021 dropping the charges against the 6th respondent, exercising its power conferred by Section 8(4) of the.

35. Thus, there is no procedural irregularity or illegality either on the part of the Executive Council in resolving to drop the allegations against the 6th respondent or on the part of the Government in issuing the impugned G.O. Rt. No. 291, dated 23.11.2021.

36. Regarding appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor, the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 specifies a procedure. For convenience, Section-11 of the is extracted hereunder:

"11. Vice Chancellor: The Government shall constitute a Search Committee consisting, of:

(i) a nominee of the Board of Management;

(ii) a nominee of the University Grants Commission; and

(iii) a nominee of the State Government.

[(iv) on the recommendation of the Government.]

The Search Committee shall submit a panel of three persons to the Government in alphabetical order from among whom the State Government shall recommend one person to the Chancellor for appointment as Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor shall appoint such person as Vice-Chancellor:

Provided that it shall be competent for the Government to call for a fresh panel if they consider necessary and the Search Committee shall submit a fresh panel to the Government.
(2) The Vice-Chancellor shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the Chancellor passed on the ground of willful omission or refusal to carry out the provisions of this Act, or abuse of the powers vested in him and after due enquiry ordered by the Government, by the Lokayukta or by such person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court as may be appointed by the Chancellor in which the Vice-Chancellor shall have an opportunity of making his representation against such removal:

Provided that where the enquiry is conducted by a person who is or has been a Judge of High Court or he supreme Court the report of such an enquiry shall be forwarded to the Government and the Chancellor shall act in accordance with the advice tendered by the Government on a consideration of the report while exercising his powers under this sub-section;

Provided further that where the Lokayukta enquires; into an allegation against the Vice-Chancellor under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 (Act 11 of 1983), then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 12 of that Act, the Lokayukta shall submit the report to the Government and the Chancellor shall act in accordance with the advice tendered by the Government on a consideration of the report while exercising his powers under this sub-section.

(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the Academic head and the principal Executive Officer of the University and shall exercise general control over its affairs. He shall be a whole time officer of the University."

37. According to Section 11 of the Act, it is for the Search Committee to evaluate the credentials of the eligible candidates and to recommend a panel of three names to the Government to appoint one among them as the Vice-Chancellor and from among whom the State Government shall recommend one person to the Chancellor for appointment as Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor shall appoint such person as Vice Chancellor on recommendation of the Government.

38. As per the contention raised by the 4th respondent University and the 6th respondent, the petitioner did not even apply for the post of Vice Chancellor. Despite the categorical contention of the respondent Nos. 4 and 6, the petitioner in her pleadings nowhere stated that she had applied for the post of Vice Chancellor. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner, who had not applied for the post of Vice Chancellor now wants to make an attempt before this Court that she being an experience woman professor is eligible to be appointed as Vice Chancellor.

39. It is a settled law that when a specific procedure is prescribed under Section 11 of theregarding appointment to a post and when the appropriate authority, after following the procedure prescribed in the, has made appointment to the said post, the same cannot be undone, since this Court is not an appellate authority.

40. Be that as it may, since the petitioner filed the writ petitions questioning the competence and authority of the Executive Council to resolve to drop the charges levelled against the 6th respondent and consequent action of the Government in issuing G.O. Rt. No. 291, dated 23.11.2021 dropping the allegations levelled against the 6th respondent, this Court feels that the issue regarding eligibility or otherwise for the post of Vice Chancellor does not fall for consideration of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this Court holds that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the eligibility of the 6th respondent for being appointed as Vice Chancellor are clearly outside the scope and ambit of the dispute involved in these writ petitions, particularly when the petitioner has not raised any contention regarding infringement of her legal right and that too when she has not applied for the post of Vice Chancellor.

41. It is also relevant here to note that though the enquiry committees have made recommendations for initiation of disciplinary action against various personnel of the 4th respondent University, the petitioner failed to give any reason as to why she is proceedings against the 6th respondent alone. This strengthens the contention raised by the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the 6th respondent that the petitioner, having been frustrated on account of the fact that the search committee, after evaluating the competence of the 6th respondent, had chosen to recommend the name of the 6th respondent, somehow wants to wreck vengeance against the petitioner and started complaining against him.

42. In Mani Subrat Jain and others v. State of Haryana and others (1977) 1 SCC 486, [LQ/SC/1976/483] the Hon'ble Apex Court at para-9 held thus:

"No one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something."

43. As stated supra, it is not at all the case of the petitioner that she had applied for the post of Vice-Chancellor and since the petitioner has not suffered any legal grievance, she is not entitled to seek for a mandamus. So also, in the absence of any contention raised by the petitioner in W.P. No. 19108 of 2020 that they have suffered any legal grievance on account of the actions of the Executive Council, the writ petition filed by her seeking mandamus must also fail.

44. In view of the above, the writ petition in W.P. No. 30445 of 2021 devoid of merits either on law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed. For the same reasons, the writ petitions in W.P. No. 16638 of 2021 and W.P. No. 19108 of 2020 also are liable to be dismissed.

45. In the result, the writ petitions in W.P. No. 19108 of 2020, W.P. No. 16638 of 2021 and W.P. No. 30445 of 2021 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.