Dismissed

P.Sureshkumar v. the Commissioner

Madras HC9 Apr 2015WP(MD)/3642/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the college's refusal to allow him to write examinations due to insufficient attendance. The petitioner alleged his suspension was based on his relationship with a Muslim girl. The Court held that the lack of required 80% attendance was the decisive factor and dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

P.Sureshkumar Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.04.2015 CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.3642 of 2015

¶5

P.Sureshkumar ... PETITIONER -vs-

¶6

The Commissioner Office of Director of Technical Education Chennai-600 025.

¶7

The Principal PET Polytechnic College, Tiruchendur Road, Madapuram, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent from interfering for attending the Class for III Year Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in the 2nd respondent Polytechnic College except under due process of law.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar For R1 : Mr.R.Anandaraj Govt. Advocate For R2 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar For M/s.Ajmal Associates ***** O R D E R

¶10

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking for issuance of a writ in the nature Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent from preventing the petitioner in attending III Year Diploma in Mechanical Engineering class in the 2nd respondent Polytechnic College except under due process of law.

¶11

The petitioner submits that he was kept under suspension for a period of two weeks and that after the period of suspension, when he approached the 2nd respondent for attending the class, the 2nd respondent in turn informed the petitioner about his disentitlement in appearing for the practical examination to be held on 17.03.2015 and the subsequent written examination. The petitioner further submits that the order of suspension was issued on the indirect ground that he was in love with a Muslim girl and that the girl insisted him to convert himself to Islam, on coming to know which, the suspension order came to be passed against him.

¶12

However, a reading of the affidavit shows that no such averment finds place in it. That apart, the second respondent has filed a counter along with a petition to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 16.03.2015 and also produced documents to show that even prior to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ date of suspension, the petitioner did not attend the classes and an intimation in this regard has also been sent to the petitioner's father.

¶13

¶14

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶15

It is immaterial for this Court to go into the question whether the petitioner was in love with a Muslim girl or not. Admittedly, there is no attendacne as per the norms of the first respondent, that it is mandatory on the part of the petitioner to possess 80% of attendance for qualifying himself to write the Board Examiantions and that as per the Director of Technical Education Rules, a condonation upto 5% is permissible for genuine and valid reasns. Since the petitioner only possesses 63.64% of attendance, he will not be eligible for the examination, even after extending the benefit of 5% condonation and therefore, the respondent College did not allow him to appear for the examiantion.

¶16

It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not have sufficient attendance and that he had fallen short of more than 7% attendance. I find that there is justification on the part of the respondents in denying permission to the petitioner to take up the examinations. Under such circumstances, there is no underlying reason whatsoever warranting this Court to interfere with the decision of the respondents. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connnected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶19

/True copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

To:

¶22

The Commissioner Office of Director of Technical Education Chennai-600 025.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.V.Sasikumar, Advocate in SR.18152 +1cc to M/s.Ajmal Associates, Advocate in SR.18148 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader in sR.18767

¶24

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.3642 of 2015 09.04.2015

¶25

¶26

pbk 2704/2015 ::2p-5c:

¶27

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

P.Sureshkumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sureshkumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sivanandam, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

I.Gayathri Vs the Tamilnadu

The Management, Penar - Vs the Presiding Officer

V. Sababathy Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Manimaran Vs the Managing Director

A1 Mohammed Saleem, Vs State Rep. by Its Secretary