Dismissed

Dr.R.a.R.Kreethana v. The Coordinator

Madras HC16 Jun 2022WP/11390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Madras dismissed a writ petition seeking admission in an MS (Ophthalmology) course, noting the academic year 2021-2022 has concluded. The court dismissed the current petition as withdrawn but granted liberty to file a fresh petition for compensation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh writ petition to seek compensation for non-allotment of a seat.

Dr.R.a.R.Kreethana Vs The Coordinator — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P.NO.11390 OF 2022 AND W.M.P.NO.10923 OF 2022

¶6

Dr.R.A.R.Kreethana ... Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

The Coordinator, Centralised Admission Committee (CENTAC) Directorate of Higher and Technology Education, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry Technological University Campus, Pillaichavady, Puducherry – 605 014.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER:-

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to admit the petitioner in the MS (Opthalmology) course pursuant to the mop-up counselling held on 12.04.2022 for filing PG Medical 2021-2022 seats.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.C.T.Ramesh Additional Government Pleader (Pondy)

¶14

This writ petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner has been deprived a seat in the respondent University despite the fact that he had secured higher marks than the students who have been allotted seats.

¶15

The writ petition has been filed for the Academic Year 2021-2022. Since the Academic Year has come to an end, nothing survives for further adjudication in this matter. However,

¶16

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court can mould the relief and also submits that the petitioner is going to seek compensation from the respondent for not allotting a seat in favour of the petitioner.

¶17

This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner will have to file a fresh writ petition for the aforementioned reliefs. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent if liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek the aforementioned reliefs as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

After recording the submissions made by the respective learned counsels, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek for the reliefs referred to supra, if so advised, in the manner known to the petitioner, under law.

¶19

It is needless to say that if at all any fresh writ petition is filed, it will have to be decided on merits.

¶20

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

The Coordinator,

Centralised Admission Committee (CENTAC) Directorate of Higher and Technology Education, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry Technological University Campus, Pillaichavady,

¶29

Puducherry – 605 014.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, Advocate, S.R.No.36493

¶31

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.36754

¶32

W.P.NO.11390 OF 2022

¶33

VG-II(CO) PBS/28/06/2022

Dr.R.a.R.Kreethana v. The Coordinator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.R.a.R.Kreethana v. The Coordinator

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

S.Rabik Raja Vs The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager

M/s.Meenakshi Catering service Vs Assistant commercial Manager

M/s.Meenakshi Catering service Vs Assistant commercial Manager

S.K.Vani Vs The Tahsildar

M/s.Delux Auto Liners Vs Member Secretary

K.Mariappan Vs The Tahsildhar