S MOUROUGA PRAGASH Versus THE CHANCELLOR, PUDUCHERRY TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. THIS ITEM.] (C.A. 53/2025)

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it to findcaseseasily@gmail.com — our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

FindCasesEasilyFindCasesEasily.comAI-Powered Case Law & Court Intelligence

Supreme Court of India

Unified case view

0 cases

Sort

Reading · C.A. 53/2025

Case Record

C.A. 53/2025

S MOUROUGA PRAGASH Versus THE CHANCELLOR, PUDUCHERRY TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. THIS ITEM.]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

C.A.Expedite trial Civil appeals Education

13 PDF renditions· 13 distinct judicial orders· 13 verified locally

Save

8Important Paragraphs
6Legal Principles
12Authorities
47Similar Cases

Case record

Research

What Happened

S MOUROUGA PRAGASH Versus THE CHANCELLOR, PUDUCHERRY TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ORS.. C.A. 53/2025 in the Supreme Court of India, CNR SCIN010017122024. Status on the court record: DISPOSED. This page is written from 13 order document(s) downloaded for this case, dated 25 January 2024 to 9 October 2025.

On 25 January 2024 the order records: 1 The petitioner has set up a limited challenge to the judgment of the High Court inasmuch as though the High Court has agreed with the contention of the petitioner that the incumbent Vice-Chancellor was appointed contrary to the University Grants Commission Regulations, yet the very same person has been allowed to con
On 17 December 2024 the order records: Leave granted. Hearing expedited.
On 7 April 2025 the order records: Counter affidavit has already been filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7. Respondent No. 6 is duly represented. Four weeks time is granted to file counter affidavit.
On 21 May 2025 the order records: Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 have already filed counter affidavit. Respondent No. 6 is duly represented.
On 29 August 2025 the order records: Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions prays for two weeks' time to file rejoinder affidavit. It has been informed that the connected Civil Appeal No.53 of 2025 is fixed for hearing on Let this petition be also listed along with the aforesaid Civil Appeal on the same date.
On 9 October 2025 the order records: With the passage of time, this appeal has lost its efficacy. Accordingly, it is dismissed as infructuous. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.

Issues Before Court

The orders on this record do not frame issues for decision.

Procedural History

25 January 2024. 1 The petitioner has set up a limited challenge to the judgment of the High Court inasmuch as though the High Court has agreed with the contention of the petitioner that the incumbent Vice-Chancellor was appointed contrary to the University Grants Commission Regulations, yet the very same person has been allowed to con
12 February 2024. 1 List the Special Leave Petition on 26 February 2024.
22 April 2024. 1 List the Petition on 03 May 2024 immediately after the fresh matters.
14 November 2024. List the matters on 27th November, 2024.
27 November 2024. Not taken up. List these matters on 03.12.2024.
17 December 2024. Leave granted. Hearing expedited.
7 April 2025. Counter affidavit has already been filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7. Respondent No. 6 is duly represented. Four weeks time is granted to file counter affidavit.
21 May 2025. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 have already filed counter affidavit. Respondent No. 6 is duly represented.
17 July 2025. As prayed, list on 14.08.2025.
14 August 2025. List on 24th September, 2025 for hearing.
22 August 2025. Not taken up. List on 29th August, 2025.
29 August 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions prays for two weeks' time to file rejoinder affidavit. It has been informed that the connected Civil Appeal No.53 of 2025 is fixed for hearing on Let this petition be also listed along with the aforesaid Civil Appeal on the same date.
9 October 2025. With the passage of time, this appeal has lost its efficacy. Accordingly, it is dismissed as infructuous. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
Counsel named on these orders, not a complete vakalatnama, include the advocates listed below.

Advocates — Appellants: Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, Ms. Eshita Baruah, Ms. Anshika Bajpai, Mr. Vishal Sinha, Mr. Maaroof, Ms. Tissy Annie Thomas, Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. G. Balaji, Ms. Jyotika Malhotra, Ms. Vriti Gujral, Mr. Kuriakose Varghese Advocates — Respondents: Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Ms. Eshita Baruah, Ms. Tissy Annie Thomas, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Mr. Aravindh S., Ms. Ekta Muyal, Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Mr. Akshat Gogna, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. G. Balaji, Ms. Jyotika Malhotra

Relief Sought & Granted

On 9 October 2025 the order records: With the passage of time, this appeal has lost its efficacy. Accordingly, it is dismissed as infructuous.

Subjects

Expedite trial Civil appeals Education

Current position

DISPOSED · Latest recorded event 9 Oct 2025

Latest development

Latest recorded event 9 Oct 2025

Final disposition

With the passage of time, this appeal has lost its efficacy. Accordingly, it is dismissed as infructuous.

Important procedural note

Written only from 13 Supreme Court order file(s) for this case. No headnote or citation was added.