Disposed

G.Suresh, v. the Dental Council of India

Madras HC15 Jul 2022WP(MD)/10464/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India held that a petition challenging a screening test restriction for an exam in August 2013 could not be adjudicated at the time of hearing due to the lapse of time, but the petition was closed without costs and liberty granted for future exams if cleared.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition closed with liberty to the petitioner to appear for such examinations, if he had not appeared and cleared, and no costs awarded.

G.Suresh, Vs the Dental Council of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.10464 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.10464 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶7

G.Suresh ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Dental Council of India, Aiwan E-Galib Marg, Kolta Road, New Delhi-110 002, Represented by its Officiating Secretary. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the respondent in NO. DE-147C(75)-12/2061, dated 12.05.2013 on the file of the respondent herein and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For Respondent : Mr.S.Sivakumar

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

1/4

¶14

W.P.(MD).No.10464 of 2013

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the respondent herein, under which the petitioner was not permitted to appear for the Screening Test for recognition of his MDS decree obtained by him in Russia. The reason that was stated in the impugned order is that he has not provided certain documents for gaining eligibility for appearing in the said Screening Test.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that he was not permitted to appear for the examination that was to be conducted in August 2013. Since the impugned order was restricted for August 2013, nothing survives to be adjudicated at this length of time. This Writ Petition is closed with liberty to the writ petitioner to appear for the examinations, if he had not appeared and cleared. No costs.

¶18

15.07.2022

¶19

gbg

¶20

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶21

2/4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.(MD).No.10464 of 2013

¶24

¶25

The Chief Educational Officer, Karur District, Karur.

¶26

3/4

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.10464 of 2013

¶29

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶30

gbg

¶31

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.10464 of 2013

¶32

15.07.2022

¶33

4/4

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.Suresh, v. the Dental Council of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Suresh, v. the Dental Council of India

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

T. Rajameyyappan, Vs the Tamil Nadu Generation and

Seethai, W/O.Udaiyappan, Vs the Joint Commissioner

Muthurakku Thevar, Vs the District Revenue Officer

Rdb College of Education Vs The Registrar Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University

B. Rangasamy, Vs the Commissioner

V.Pallapatti Islamic Education Vs the Secretary