Disposed

Dr.B.John Samuel v. the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.

Madras HC18 Oct 2016WP(MD)/13324/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition praying for a direction to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R Medical University to evaluate the petitioner's papers for second and third theory exam evaluations. The court directed the university to evaluate the papers based on the petitioner's application.

What did the court decide?

Directions that the respondent University evaluate the petitioner's papers based on the application submitted by the petitioner.

Dr.B.John Samuel Vs the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.10.2016

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.13324 of 2016

¶7

B.John Samuel ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R Medical University Director of Collegiate Education, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032,

¶10

rep. by its Registrar.

¶11

2.The Controller of Examination,

¶12

The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai,

¶13

Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ... Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to give the petitioner the benefit of the 2^nd and 3^rd evaluations for the Theory Examinations taken by him in April 2016 under Registration No.221313454 in respect of M.S.Degree Course in Ophthalmology. (prayer amended as per order dated 18.10.2016, in W.M.P(MD)No.14190 of 2016)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Robert Bruce

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.C.Karthick

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents herein to give benefit of the 2^nd and 3^rd evaluations for the Theory Examinations taken by the petitioner in April 2016 under Registration No.221313454 in respect of M.S.Degree Course in Ophthalmology.

¶19

2.When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has paid necessary fees for the second and third evaluation for the theory examinations taken by him in April 2016.

¶20

3.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent University https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would submit that they are ready to consider his application and also evaluate the papers.

¶21

4.Recording the said submission made by the learned

¶22

¶23

counsel for the respondent University, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent university to evaluate the papers based on the application submitted by the petitioner. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

sms

¶27

¶28

1.The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R Medical University Director of Collegiate Education, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032, rep. by its Registrar. 2.The Controller of Examination, The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.C.Karthick Advocate Sr.No. 61168 +1cc to Mr.F.Deepak Advocate Sr.No. 62141

¶30

JAM/25.11.16/PV/SAR 3/2p-5c

¶31

Writ Petition (MD) No.13324 of 2016 18.10.2016

¶32

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

Dr.B.John Samuel v. the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.B.John Samuel v. the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.

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

Malliga Arulkumar Vs the Inspector General of

Thiruchendur Nattar Maruthuvar Vs the Tahsildar

Subburaj, S/O.Krishnasamy, Vs the Tahsildar

P.Raja Pandi Vs the District Collector

S. Jeevarathinam, Vs the District Registrar

A.Seithun Beevi Vs the Zonal Manager