Dismissed

S.Xavier, S/O.a.Sebastian v. the Vice-Chancellor

Madras HC13 Dec 2022WP(MD)/12286/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought to quash an order declining to allow a public Viva-voce Examination test and prayed for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to conduct the test as Convener. The court noted that nothing survived for further adjudication and dismissed the petition. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

S.Xavier, S/O.a.Sebastian Vs the Vice-Chancellor — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.12286 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.12286 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.9197 & 9198 of 2019

S.Xavier

... Petitioner

1.The Vice-Chancellor, Bharathidasan University, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirappalli – 24.

¶11

2.The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirappalli – 24.

¶12

3.The Controller of Examinations, Bharathidasan University, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirappalli – 24.

¶13

4.The Director – Research, Bharathidasan University, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirappalli – 24.

¶14

5.T.Ashokan

¶15

6.Alphons George ... Respondents

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.12286 of 2019

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the fourth respondent vide his proceedings in Ref.Number : 13125/K11/Ph.D/Dir/2018/ History and consequential order of the fifth respondent dated Nil for public Viva-voce Examination scheduled to be held on 22.5.2019 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 4 to allow the petitioner to conduct the public Viva-voce Examination Test for the sixth respondent as Convener / Research Advisor of the sixth respondent.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramanathan

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Standing Counsel for R.1 to R.4

¶22

No Appearance for R.5

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner informs the Court that nothing survives for further adjudication. This writ petition is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

13.12.2022

¶26

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No mga

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.12286 of 2019

¶30

¶31

1.The Vice-Chancellor, Bharathidasan University, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirappalli – 24.

¶32

2.The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirappalli – 24.

¶33

3.The Controller of Examinations, Bharathidasan University, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirappalli – 24.

¶34

4.The Director – Research, Bharathidasan University, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirappalli – 24.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶36

W.P(MD)No.12286 of 2019

¶37

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶38

mga

¶39

W.P(MD)No.12286 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.9197 & 9198 of 2019

¶40

13.12.2022

¶41

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

¶42

4/4

S.Xavier, S/O.a.Sebastian v. the Vice-Chancellor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Xavier, S/O.a.Sebastian v. the Vice-Chancellor

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.Narayanan Vs the District Collector

R.Chandrasekaran, Vs the District Collector

M.Kulanthaiya, Vs the District Collector

N.M.Polytechnic College, Vs the Member Secretary

Higher Secondary School Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Moses Samuel, Vs the Director of Matriculation