Dismissed

Praveen Kumar v. the Commissioner of

Madras HC9 Feb 2015WP(MD)/15863/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandate to allow completion of a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering after failing to attend sixth semester due to personal absenteeism. The bench dismissed the claim, finding the petitioner had not sought condonation of delay earlier and must redo the semester.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to the first respondent for redoing the sixth semester within two weeks.

Praveen Kumar Vs the Commissioner of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.02.2015 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶4

Writ Petition (MD) No.15863 of 2014

¶5

Praveen Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

¶6

1.The Commissioner of Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy.

¶7

2.The Principal, Vickram Polytechnic College, Srinivasa Gardens, Enathi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner to complete the course of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering by allowing the petitioner to sit for the 6^th semester examination which is scheduled in the March 2015.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Madhusudhanan

¶10

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.R.Anandaraj Government Advocate.

¶11

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.D.Saravanan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the second respondent to permit him to complete the course of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering by allowing him to sit for the 6^th semester examination which is scheduled to be held in the month of March 2015.

¶14

2.The case of the petitioner is as follows:-

¶15

He joined the second respondent institution in the academic year 2009-2012 in Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He has successfully completed 5 semesters and also attended the sixth semester. He has fallen in love and infatuation with one girl not connected with the second respondent institution. Due to the said fact, the second respondent institution denied permission to attend the college. Therefore, the petitioner could not write 6^th semester examination. He gave a complaint to the higher officers and his complaint was forwarded to the first respondent who in turn issued communication to the second on 04.08.2014. However, no progress was made. Therefore, the present writ petition has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been filed for the relief as stated supra.

¶16

¶17

3.A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner eloped with an elderly lady in a nearby village and consequently he absconded and his whereabouts were not known. The petitioner did not have sufficient attendance for the 6^th semester examination. He kept quite for three years and now filed the present writ petition. It is not possible for the second respondent college to permit the petitioner to write the examination due to lack of attendance.

¶18

4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶19

5.It is seen that the petitioner who got admission to the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Course and completed five semesters, could not complete the 6^th semester due to his love affair with a girl in the neighboring village. This Court is not inclined to go into the conduct of the petitioner and give a finding as to whether the petitioner is justified in his absence in the college due to such affair. Needless to state that a person who goes to the college has to complete the course with required attendance and if there is any default, he has to seek for condonation of the same before the authorities concerned at the relevant point of time. In this case, the petitioner has not taken any steps to approach the first respondent seeking for condonation of delay in writing the 6^th semester examination then and there. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has to redo the sixth semester either in the second respondent college or in any other college, if the first respondent permits him to do so.

¶20

6.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of only with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent seeking permission to redo the sixth semester either in the second respondent college or any other college and such representation shall be made by the petitioner within two weeks from today. If such representation is made, it is for the first respondent to consider and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, within six weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(Writ)

¶23

\True copy\

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Commissioner of Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai

¶27

+1 CC TO M/S.C.MADHUSUDHANAN, ADVOCATE SR.NO.6177

¶28

+1 CC TO M/S.D.SARAVANAN, ADVOCATE SR.NO.5837

¶29

+1 CC TO THE SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SR.NO.6017

¶30

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

¶31

Writ Petition (MD) No.15863 of 2014 09.02.2015

¶32

NA/19/02/2015/P2/5C

Praveen Kumar v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Vijayaraghavan Vs the Joint Registrar/Managing

K.Chockkalingam Vs the Commissioner of Municipal

M.C.Jeyapandian Vs the Management of

D.Joseph Dhanapaul Vs the Director of School

R. Chelladurai, Vs the Director

P. Anandaraman Vs Recovery Officer