Dismissed

E.Jothiragawan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC8 Apr 2022WP/4087/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his rejection from MBA examinations due to low attendance caused by arrest and bail in a criminal case. Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioner's admitted deficiency in attendance and refusal to challenge the institution's policy.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari and quashing order dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed; no costs.

E.Jothiragawan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.04.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P.No.4087 of 2022 & W.M.P.Nos.4221 and 4223 and of 2022

E.Jothiragawan

... Petitioner

The State of Tamil Nadu

¶10

rep. by its Secretary

¶11

Higher Education,

¶12

Secretariate, St. George Fort,

¶13

Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

The Director, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai.

¶15

The Principal, Nandha Engineering College, Perundurai, Erode District. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent in Ref.No.Nil dated 25.01.2022 and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash

¶19

Government Advocate - R1 Mr.V.Kadhirvelu – R3 No appearance – R2

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate for R1 and Mr.V.Kadhirvelu, learned counsel for R3. There is no appearance for R2, even though the descrption of R2 is printed in the cause list.

¶22

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

¶23

2.The petitioner challenges order dated 25.01.2022 rejecting the request of the petitioner to write the first year M.B.A. examinations. The reason for rejection is that the first semester comprises of 59 working days, of which, the petitioner has attended only 8 days.

¶24

3.Since 75% of attendance is mandatory for the endSemester examinations and the petitioner has attendance of only 13%, he was put to notice that he was not eligible to write the end Semester examinations.

¶25

4.The explanation put forth by the petitioner is that he had been arrested on the basis of a complaint made before the All Women Police Station, Erode in Crime No.36 of 2021 for offences under Section 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

5.He was remanded to judicial custody on 09.11.2021 and had been enlarged on bail only on 21.12.2021, during which period, he, admittedly, had not attended the classes.

¶27

The Attendance policy of the Institution has not been challenged and rightly so, and there is no proximity in the same. Thus, I see no avenue for this Court to come to the rescue of the petitioner, in light of the admitted deficiency in attendance.

¶28

This Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

¶35

The Secretary The State of Tamil Nadu Higher Education, Secretariate, St. George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.

¶36

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

¶37

The Director, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.B.Kumarasamy, Advocate SR.No.25184

¶39

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.25088

¶40

W.P.No.4087 of 2022 & W.M.P.Nos.4221 and 4223 and of 2022

¶41

MT(CO) GMY(27/04/2022)

¶42

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

E.Jothiragawan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Jothiragawan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

A.Ayyanarappan, Vs the Director of Town and

P.Mohan Vs The District Collector/

P.Mohan Vs The District Collector/

C.a.Manikandan Vs the Commissioner

J.Jeyakumar Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

S.G.Recreation Club Vs The Inspector General of Registration