Dismissed

A.Anandha Prakash, v. the Commissioner of Technical

Madras HC28 Mar 2019WP(MD)/5314/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment adjudicates a writ petition filed for special permission to write supplementary examinations. The court dismissed the petition noting exams commence the next day, but directed the State to consider the petitioner's representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within three months.

A.Anandha Prakash, Vs the Commissioner of Technical — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.03.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.5314 of 2019

A.Anandha Prakash

... Petitioner

The Commissioner of Technical Education, Examination Department, Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai-25.

¶11

The Principal, Lakshmi Sundaram Polytechnic College, Melakkal.

¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai-9. 4. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai-9. ... Respondents

¶13

(R3 and R4 are impleaded vide Court order dated 25.03.2019 in W.M.P(MD).No.4513 of 2019)

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to accept the exam fees and permit to write the exams, to be conducted in April,2019 by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Duraipandian For Respondents : Mr.K.Mu.Muthu

¶16

Additional Government Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner joined Diploma in Medical Engineering in the year 2011. He completed his course in the year 2014. He left for

¶21

¶22

Overseas employment and returned in the year 2017. The petitioner originally had five subjects to be cleared. Out of five subjects, he cleared two and he is having arrears in respect of the remaining three. The petitioner wanted to write the Examination in respect of the said three subjects. But, the first respondent informed the Court that he was already given two chances and that therefore, unless the Government gives special permission, he cannot be allowed to write the supplementary Examinations. This communication dated 25.01.2019 is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶23

I am of the view that the order impugned in this writ petition cannot be faulted. The Exams commence tomorrow (ie., 29.03.2019). Therefore, the petitioner can only appear in the next Examination and that too, if the Government gives special permission.

¶24

Therefore, even while dismissing this Writ Petition, this Court directs the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.12.2018 and pass appropriate orders. Such an order will be passed by the third respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

With this direction, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶28

¶29

The Commissioner of Technical Education, Examination Department, Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai-25.

¶30

The Principal, Lakshmi Sundaram Polytechnic College, Melakkal.

¶31

The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Chennai-9.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

The Deputy Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai-9.

¶35

+1 CC to Special Government Pleader ( SR-57926[F] dated 29/03/2019 )

¶36

+1 CC to Mr.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Advocate ( SR-57809[F] dated 29/03/2019 )

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.5314 of 2019 28.03.2019

¶38

rmk AE (27.04.2019) 3P 7C

¶39

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

A.Anandha Prakash, v. the Commissioner of Technical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Anandha Prakash, v. the Commissioner of Technical

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

M.Kavery Ammal Vs the Tahsildar

S.Rengaraj, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Reehana Hasmath Vs the Registrar

J. Amaravathi Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Vinayaga Traders, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Chinnadurai, Vs the District Collector