Dismissed

S.Arunachalam v. the Registrar

Madras HC9 Apr 2019WP/18028/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the rejection of a part-time Ph.D. law admission application based on distance education qualifications. The High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous because the cause of action arose in 2007, and the proceeding was heard in 2019.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous and the connected miscellaneous application was closed.

S.Arunachalam Vs the Registrar — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.04.2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

W.P.No.18028 of 2007 and M.P.1 of 2007

¶5

S.Arunachalam S/o. A.Subramanian.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-
1. The Registrar,
The Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,
Poomuzhi, No.5, P.S. Kumarasamy Rajasalai,
Chennai – 600 028.
2. The Vice Chancellor,
The Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,
Poomuzhi, No.5, P.S. Kumarasamy Rajasalai,
Chennai – 600 028. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the Records connected with the prospectus and regulations for Ph.D. Degree in law for 2007 to quash that portion of the Prospectus in so far as it states that “those M.L.Degree Holders Secured thro Distance Education and Private Study mode are not considered for admission in Ph.D. In Law “and also prayed to quash the order passed in the Respondent's Letter No.1421/Regr./B7/2006 dt. 3.5.2007 and further direct the respondent to select the petitioner for Registration for part time Ph.D in law for 2007.

¶9

For petitioner : No appearance For Respondents: Mr.T.D.Vasu

¶10

ORDER

¶11

None appears for the writ petitioner.

¶12

The learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that the writ petitioner applied for joining the

¶13

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

¶14

research programme conducted by the respondent University in the year 2007. His application was rejected for the reasons set out in the impugned order dated 03.05.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner challenged the portion of prospectus, insofar as it states that those M.L. Degree holders, who obtained the degree through Distance Education or Private study will not be considered for admission in Ph.D. in law.

¶15

The cause of action arose in the year 2007. We are now in the year 2019. Therefore, I am of the view that nothing survives for further adjudication.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
infructuous. Connected, miscellaneous application is
closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mp
To,
1. The Registrar,
The Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,
Poomuzhi, No.5, P.S. Kumarasamy Rajasalai,
Chennai – 600 028.
2. The Vice Chancellor,
The Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,
Poomuzhi, No.5, P.S. Kumarasamy Rajasalai,
Chennai – 600 028.
+1cc to Mr.T.D.Vasu , Advocate SR.No. 35145
W.P.No.18028 of 2007
and M.P.1 of 2007
A.SK(07/05/2019)

¶17

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

S.Arunachalam v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Arunachalam v. the Registrar

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

S.Manimaran, S/O.K.a.Sangiah Vs the Union of India

S.Sairajan, S/O.Sundara Babu, Vs the District Collector

The President, Vs the Deputy Registrar of

Mrs.Mohd. Rahamathumma Vs the Secretary to Government

V. Mathi Vs the Collector

Suresh Kumar Bied Vs the Special Tahsildar