Disposed

S.Kannan v. The Commissioner of Technical

Madras HC5 Jan 2022WP/16616/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of multiple writ petitions seeking permission to write M.E. examinations and publication of results. It held that after five years, if the petitioner has obtained necessary approvals and complied with university regulations, the respondents must publish results by following prescribed procedures.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider approval and attendance aspects, take a decision expeditiously, and publish results if petitioner complies with requirements.

S.Kannan Vs The Commissioner of Technical — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.01.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.NOS.16616 OF 2016, 38526 OF 2015 14853 OF 2015 & 28963 OF 2014 AND W.M.P.NO.14353 OF 2016, M.P.NOS.1 OF 2015, 1 & 2 OF 2015 AND 1 OF 2014

¶6

S.Kannan ... Petitioner in

¶7

all W.P's

¶8

.Vs.

¶9

The Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶10

The Perumal Manimegalai College of Engineering, N.H.17^th KM Hosur, Krishnagiri Highways, Koneripalli, Hosur – 631 117.

¶11

The Controller of Examinations, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.

¶12

Guindy, Chennai – 600 025. ... Respondents in all W.P's (R3 impleaded as per Order dated 13/11/2014 by VRSJ in M.P.No.2 of 2014 in W.P.No.28963 of 2014)

¶13

PRAYER IN W.P.NO.16616 OF 2016:-

¶14

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, d irecting the respondents to permit the petitioner (Reg.No.610811408004) to write the M.E. (Engineering Design) Examination May 2016 with reference to Practical Examination ED 9212 ED 9225 ED 9226 ED 9231 ED 9241 and theory Examination ED 9223 ED 9224 ED 9221 ED 9222 and ED 9266 and to publish the results for the same.

¶15

PRAYER IN W.P.NO.38526 OF 2015:-

¶16

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, d irecting the Respondents to permit the Petitioner (Reg.No.610811408004) to writ the ongoing M.E. (Engineering Design) Examination Nov./Dec-2015 with reference to three elective subjects of 3^rd Semester viz. (I). ED9259: Design of Material Handling Equipments (ii).IE9224: Supply Chain Management and (iii).PD9254: Enterprise Resource Planning and to publish the results for the same.

¶17

PRAYER IN W.P.NO.14853 OF 2015:-

¶18

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent inLr.No.6108/COE/C26/2015 dated 27.04.2015 (served on 13.05.2015) and to quash the same and consequently directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner (Regn.No.610811408004) to write the ongoing M.E. (Engineering Design) Examination April/May 2015 and to publish the results for the same within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶19

PRAYER IN W.P.NO.28963 OF 2014:-

¶20

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, d irecting the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete M.E., Engineering Design Course in the 2^nd respondent College by permitting him to write the examination commencing from 10.11.2014 for M.E., Engineering Design and to publish the resulted for the same.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander

¶23

Special Government Pleader [Edn] For R1 in all W.P's

¶24

Mr.T.Panchatsaram For R2 in all W.P's

¶25

Mr.M.Vijayakumar

¶26

For R3 in W.P.Nos.16616 of 2016 14813 of 2015 and 28963 of 2014

¶27

Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram For R3 in W.P.No.38526 of 2015

¶28

COMMON ORDER

¶29

The relief sought for in the writ petitions is to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to write the M.E examination and to publish the results.

¶30

Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner is permitted to write the examination. However, the results are yet to be published.

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondents made a submission that necessary approval is to be granted for admission to the M.E course and in the absence of any approval the results cannot be declared.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner replied by stating that necessary approval was granted for admission and therefore, results are to be published.

¶33

The learned counsel for the respondents raised a ground regarding the attendance of the petitioner also.

¶34

In this regard, the petitioner had stated that already the same has been considered.

¶35

This Court is of the considered opinion that five years lapsed and the petitioner was permitted to write the examination. If at all necessary approvals are obtained and the petitioners have complied with the all the requirements as per the rules of University Regulations in force, then the respondents are bound to publish the results by following the procedures as contemplated. The respondents are directed to consider all these aspects, take a decision as expeditiously as possible and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶36

8. With these directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

cse

¶42

To
1.	The Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
2.	The Perumal Manimegalai College of Engineering, N.H.17^thKM Hosur, Krishnagiri Highways, Koneripalli, Hosur – 631 117.
3.	The Controller of Examinations, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.
+1cc	to Mr.G.Sankaran, Advocate, S.R.No.1444
+3ccs	to Mr.M.Vijayakumar, Advocate, S.R.Nos.843 to 845
+1cc	to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.1664

¶43

W.P.Nos.16616 OF 2016, 38526 OF 2015, 14853 OF 2015 & 28963 OF 2014

¶44

RGN(CO) PBS/16/02/2022

S.Kannan v. The Commissioner of Technical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kannan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bright Foundries Coimbatore Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

Terra Energy Ltd, Rep. Company Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

D.Dinakaran Vs The Assistant Executive

K.Padmasree Vs R.Dwarkanath

B. Moynudheen Vs The Director of School

Sree Narayana Ednl. Guidance Vs Pondicherry University