Allowed

P.Maheshkumar v. The Registrar

Madras HC9 Oct 2015WP/16264/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition under Article 226 directing the respondents to publish the petitioners results of the B.Ed. Examination 2011. This decision relied on a previous order regarding withdrawn college recognition, emphasizing that such withdrawal cannot retrospectively annul courses undergone when the college was recognized.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to declare the results of the petitioners within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

P.Maheshkumar Vs The Registrar — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.10.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No. 16264 of 2015 And M.P.No. 1 of 2015

¶6

P.Maheskumar
2. K.Banumathi
3. R.Gayathiri
4. P.Poonkodi
5. M.Janarthanan
6. N.Santhi
7. R.Mehala ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The Registrar
Tamilnadu Teachers Education University
Lady Wellington College Campus, Kamaraj Salai
Chennai -5.
2. The Principal
Annai Fathima Teachers Training
College of Education
Manakadavu, Dharapuram
Tiruppur District. ...Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to publish the petitioners results of the B.Ed., Examination 2011 held in May/June 2011.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.U.Venkatesan

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The present Writ Petition has been filed alleging that the petitioners are qualified for admission to B.Ed., course and having required attendance, however, the results have not been published pursuant to the examination conducted in the year 2011.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue involved is covered by the decision rendered in W.P.No. 30772 of 2013 etc., dated 09.10.2014 wherein the following order is passed:-

¶13

“2. In separate batches of cases filed by the other students belonging to the same batch, this Court passed several orders directing the respondents to declare the results. The order of withdrawal of recognition cannot take retrospective effect so as to annul the course undergone by the petitioners. At the time when the petitioners joined the course, the course was recognised. Admission of the students also have been approved at that time. Therefore, on the basis of the order of withdrawal of recognition passed in August 2010, the course undergone by the petitioners in 2009-10 cannot be put to peril.

¶14

In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed directing the respondents to declare the results of the petitioners, subject tot eh petitioners having been qualified for admission to the B.Ed., course and subject to the petitioners having attendance requirements. The results shall be declared within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2013 and 1 and 1 of 2014 are closed.”

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is ordered on the above terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsg
To
1. The Registrar
Tamilnadu Teachers Education University
Lady Wellington College Campus, Kamaraj Salai
Chennai -5.
2. The Principal
Annai Fathima Teachers Training
College of Education
Manakadavu, Dharapuram
Tiruppur District.
1 CC to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate SR.No. 55735
1 CC to Mr.U.Venkatesan, Advocate SR.No. 55165
W.P.No. 16264 of 2015
And
M.P.No. 1 of 2015
KJI (CO)
PSI (19.10.2015)

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Maheshkumar v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Maheshkumar v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Vennila, W/O. R.Adhi Vs the District Collector

S.Ramanujam, Vs The Principal Secretary /

M/s.Venkateswara Industrial Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

P. Radhakrishnan, Vs The District Collector

K.Ramesh Vs The District Collector

Vethamonickam Memorial Vs All India Council for