Dismissed

Dr.B.Maria John, v. M.Lionel Antony Raj

Madras HC16 Aug 2017WMP(MD)/11293/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court considered a petition seeking to implead the petitioner as a respondent in a writ petition challenging the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University. The court held that the petitioner's relevance to the limited scope of the main petition was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The petition for impleadment of the petitioner as respondent No.10 was dismissed

Dr.B.Maria John, Vs M.Lionel Antony Raj — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Special Original Jurisdiction )

¶2

Wednesday, the Sixteenth day of August Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Honble Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN** and **The Honble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶5

WMP(MD) No.11293 of 2017 IN

¶6

WP(MD) No.12788 of 2017

¶7

1 DR.B.MARIA JOHN ... PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.10

¶8

1 M.LIONEL ANTONY RAJ

¶9

2 DR.P.P.CHELLATHURAI

¶10

VICE CHANCELLOR, MADURAI KAMARAJAR UNIVERSITY, PALKALAI NAGAR, MADURAI -21.

¶11

3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI - 600 009.

¶12

4 THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, CHENNAI - 600 009.

¶14

5 THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH JAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI.

¶15

6 DR.C.MURUKADAS

¶16

VICE CHANCELLOR SEARCH COMMITTEE, MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY, MADURAI, NO. 38, (OLD NO. 76A) GILL NAGAR 3RD STREET, CHOOLAIMEDU, CHENNAI-94.

¶17

7 DR. HARISH L.METHA

¶18

MEMBER VICE CHANCELLOR SEARCH COMMITTEE, MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY, MADURAI, OLD NO. 62, NEW NO. 20, BURKIT ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI -17.

¶19

8 DR.G.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶20

MEMBER VICE CHANCELLOR SEARCH COMMITTEE,

¶21

MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY, MADURAI,

¶22

NO.6, SHANTHINIKETAN COLONY, ANNA NAGAR, MADURAI.

¶23

9 THE CHANCELLOR OF MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RAJ BHAVAN, GUINDY, CHENNAI.

¶24

10 THE REGISTRAR MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY, PALKALAI NAGAR, MADURAI. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶25

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to permit the petitioner be impleaded as proposed respondent No.10 in the instant writ petition in WP(MD)No.12788 of 2017.

¶26

Prayer in WP(MD). 12788/ 2017 :

¶27

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto to the 1st Respondent to show cause under what authority the 1st Respondent is holding the post of Vice Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai and to quash his appointment to such post.

¶28

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY,, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.S.VANCHINATHAN, Advocate for R1 and MR.ISAAC MOHANLAL, Senior Counsel for M/S.ISAAC CHAMBER for R2, MR.B.PUGALENDHI, Additional Advocate General Assisted by MR.M.GOVINDAN, Special Government Pleader for R3 & R4 and MR.B.SARAVANAN, Advocate for R5 and MR.R.NARAYANAN, Advocate for R7 and MR.C.M.ARUMUGAM, Advocate for R8 and MR.H.THAYUMANASWAMY, Advocate for R10 the court made the following order:-

¶29

(Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J. )

¶30

This petition is filed to implead the petitioner as respondent No.10 in the writ petition.

¶31

2.According to the petitioner, he made an application for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University. However, notwithstanding his meritorious position, the first respondent, who was not even eligible to make an application was selected.

¶32

3.The scope of the writ petition is very limited. The petitioner filed the writ petition on allegation that the first respondent is not eligible to make an application. The second round relates to the involvement of the first respondent in a criminal case investigated by the Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai District. There is no need for the intervention of the petitioner for deciding the issue raised by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.We therefore do not find any reason to implead the petitioner as a party to the writ petition. This petition is

¶34

dismissed. It is always open to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner known to law.

¶35

sd/16/08/2017 / TRUE COPY /

¶36

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶37

¶38

1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI - 600 009. 2 THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, CHENNAI - 600 009. 3 THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH JAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI. 4 THE CHANCELLOR OF MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY, RAJ BHAVAN, GUINDY, CHENNAI. 5 THE REGISTRAR MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY, PALKALAI NAGAR, MADURAI.

¶39

ORDER IN WMP(MD) No.11293 of 2017 IN WP(MD) No.12788 of 2017 Date :16/08/2017 MKV-CM-MSA-SAR 2/23.8.2017/3P-6C

¶40

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

Dr.B.Maria John, v. M.Lionel Antony Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.B.Maria John, v. M.Lionel Antony Raj

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

The Superintending Engineer Vs S.P. Selvaraj

The Director of School Educati Vs S.P. Vimala

A.Thangaraj, Vs the Superintending Engineer

The Secretary to Government, Vs Tmt.Jeyaseela, W/O.a.Pandi

T.P.S. Ponkumaran Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Subramanian, Vs the District Collector