Disposed

Rm. Yegammai, D/O.M.Ramasamy, v. the Controller of Examinations

Madras HC21 Sept 2022WP(MD)/13399/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the alteration of the petitioner's full-time ME course to part-time and the non-availability of semesters' mark sheets. The court declined to interfere further.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Rm. Yegammai, D/O.M.Ramasamy, Vs the Controller of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13399 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13399 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011

RM.Yegammal

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Controller of Examinations, Anna University of Technology, Tiruchirappalli.

¶11

2.The Principal,

¶12

Mount Zion College of Engineering and Technology, Lena Vilakku, Pillivalam, Pudukkottai District.

¶13

3.The Principal, Sudharsan Engineering College, Sathiyamangalam, Pudukkottai District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.13399 of 2011

¶19

his proceedings AUT-T/COE/2011/132, dated 07.10.2011 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶20

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Sundar Srinivasan For R-1 : M/s.John Rajadurai For R-2 : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For R-3 : Mr.G.Sridharan

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging a notification issued by the first respondent herein, under which, the full time M.E., Course of the writ petitioner was altered into a part time Course. Since the petitioner has already completed the full time Course, the first respondent has also released the mark statements.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition submits that she is yet to receive the mark statement for the third semester and the final semester. However, the learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that they have been transmitted to the third respondent College and she could collect the same from the third respondent College. Thereafter, it is for the petitioner to apply for the

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.13399 of 2011

¶27

convocation through the third respondent College on payment of

¶28

necessary charges.

¶29

With the above said observations, the writ petition stands

¶30

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected

¶31

Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.

¶32

21.09.2022

¶33

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No btr

¶34

¶35

1.The Controller of Examinations, Anna University of Technology, Tiruchirappalli.

¶36

2.The Principal,

¶37

Mount Zion College of Engineering and Technology, Lena Vilakku, Pillivalam, Pudukkottai District.

¶38

3.The Principal, Sudharsan Engineering College, Sathiyamangalam, Pudukkottai District.

¶39

3/4

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.13399 of 2011

¶42

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶43

btr

¶44

Order made in W.P(MD)No.13399 of 2011

¶45

21.09.2022

¶46

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

¶47

4/4

Rm. Yegammai, D/O.M.Ramasamy, v. the Controller of Examinations

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rm. Yegammai, D/O.M.Ramasamy, v. the Controller of Examinations

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

P.Joseph Anand Vs the District Revenue Officer

O.T.S.Ethirajulu Choudri, Vs Tamil Nadu Bar Council

The Chairman Vs the All India Council for

Thilagavathy, Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Ramasamy, Vs the District Collector

A.Ranagapitchai Naidu Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu