JUDGMENT : Initially, the present contempt case is filed seeking to punish one Professor V.Krishna Mohan, Registrar, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for willful disobedience of the order dated 22-11-2022 in W.P.No. 7165 of 2022 passed by this Court. Subsequently, after the term of Professor V.Krishna Mohan is over, one Dr. M.James Stephen is appointed as Registrar, Andhra University, and I.A.No. 1 of 2023 is filed to implead him as respondent No. 2 in the present contempt case which is allowed by order dated 24-11-2023. 2. Heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-contemnors. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present contempt case are that initially, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 7165 of 2022 before this Court against the respondents therein questioning the inaction on the part of respondent No. 1 therein in forwarding the application of the petitioner, for grant of post doctoral fellowship, to respondent No. 2 and the petitioner also claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the mental agony and pain caused by the respondents therein. The respondent-University contested the writ petition by filing counter contending inter alia that one Professor M.Umadevi initially gave her consent to act as a guide to the petitioner but subsequently she withdrew her consent. As such, as no professor is coming forward to act as a guide to the petitioner, the University could not forward the application of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 therein. Consequently, this Court, by order dated 22-11-2022, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 1 therein to forward the application made by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 for grant of post doctoral fellowship if any professor gives consent to act as a guide to the petitioner. 4. As respondent No. 1 therein was not forwarding the application of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 therein, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. 5. Respondent No. 1 filed counter contending inter alia that initially, Professor M.Umadevi gave consent letter dated 31-01-2022 to act as a guide to the petitioner but subsequently she withdrew her consent by addressing letter dated 09-02-2022 to the University. The petitioner filed reply affidavit disputing the said letter of withdrawal dated 09-02-2022 addressed by Professor M.Umadevi withdrawing her consent as false. 6. The petitioner filed reply affidavit disputing the said letter of withdrawal dated 09-02-2022 addressed by Professor M.Umadevi withdrawing her consent as false. 6. This Court, by order dated 30-08-2023, directed Professor M.Umadevi to appear before this Court on 06-09-2023 to answer the letters dated 31-01-2022 and 09-02-2022. Pursuant to the said direction, Professor M.Umadevi appeared before this Court. When this Court confronted Professor M.Umadevi with the letter dated 09-02-2022, she admitted that initially, she gave consent to act as a guide to the petitioner by letter dated 31-01-2022 but thereafter she withdrew her consent by addressing letter dated 09-02-2022 to the University stating that the petitioner suppressed the factum of her involvement in crime No. 39 of 2022 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353 and 448 read with Section 34 IPC. Consequently, the presence of Professor M.Umadevi has been dispensed with. As such, the contention of the respondents-contemnors to the effect that Professor M.Umadevi withdrew her consent by addressing letter dated 09-02-2022 is found to be correct. On the same day i.e. on 06-09-2023, this Court asked the petitioner as well as the respondent-University to request any one of the professors to act as a guide to the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent-University requested all the professors to act as a guide to the petitioner enabling it to forward the application of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. On 05-01-2024, it is represented by the respondent-University that no professor in the University is coming forward to act as a guide to the petitioner for different reasons. Learned counsel for the respondents has also produced bunch of letters addressed by different professors refusing to act as a guide to the petitioner. On the same day i.e. on 05-01-2024, this Court permitted the petitioner to obtain consent of any of the professor of other Universities according to her choice and furnish the same to this Court by 29-01-2024 but there is no response from the petitioner. 7. On the same day i.e. on 05-01-2024, this Court permitted the petitioner to obtain consent of any of the professor of other Universities according to her choice and furnish the same to this Court by 29-01-2024 but there is no response from the petitioner. 7. As seen from the above material placed on record, the respondents have made all their efforts to convince the professors of the respondent-University to act as a guide to the petitioner but no professor is coming forward to act as a guide to the petitioner obviously for the reason that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case which fact was stated by Professor M.Umadevi. The respondents made all efforts to convince the professors of the respondent-University to act as a guide to the petitioner. Unless any professor gives consent to act as a guide to the petitioner, the respondents cannot forward the application of the petitioner for post doctoral fellowship to respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that there is no disobedience exhibited by the respondents to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No. 7165 of 2022 dated 22-11-2022 and the contempt case is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.