Dismissed

R.B.Ajitha, v. the Secretary

Madras HC5 Sept 2018WP/13972/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a transfer certificate from the nursing college. The court noted the petition was filed in 2013 but the petitioner currently has no instructions, as the course is completed, and dismissed the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous because the course has been completed and the petitioner has no instructions.

R.B.Ajitha, Vs the Secretary — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.09.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.No.13972 of 2013

¶6

R.B.Ajitha
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Controller of Examination,
The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University,
Nawab Garden,
69, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
3. The Principal,
Sree Mookabika College of Nursing
V.P.M. Hospital Complex,
Padanilam,
Kulasekaram – 629 161,
Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of
Mandamus directing the third respondent to issue Transfer
Certificate, No Objection Certificate for getting transfer and
all other certificates of the petitioner.

¶7

The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to issue Transfer Certificate, No Objection Certificate and other Certificates of the petitioner for getting transfer.

¶8

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

¶9

third respondent College through counselling under Government Quota. During the second year, she had problem with the Management and therefore, she wanted to get transferred from the third respondent College to some other College.

¶10

It is seen that the Writ Petition is filed in the year 2013 and the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no instruction from the petitioner.

¶11

Having regard to the fact that the course has been completed and the learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to get instruction from his client, this Court find that there is no scope for letting this matter pending. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

¶12

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pvs
To
1. The Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Controller of Examination,
The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University,
Nawab Garden,
69, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
3. The Principal,
Sree Mookabika College of Nursing
V.P.M. Hospital Complex,
Padanilam,
Kulasekaram – 629 161,
Kanyakumari District.

¶13

W.P.No.13972 of 2013

¶14

GMY(28/09/2018)

¶15

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

R.B.Ajitha, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.B.Ajitha, v. the Secretary

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

Srinivasa Charitable Trust Vs The Principal Secretary

R.Santana Krishnan, Vs The Controller of Examinations

Dr.Vyoma Tewari D/O. Shri Vs the Registrar

S.Sanjith Vs the Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.

Grt Institute of Engineering & Vs The All India council for

Morning Star Centre Aided Vs The Director of Elementary