Disposed

S.Madhankumar v. Manonmaniyam Sundaranar

Madras HC1 Dec 2022WP(MD)/24842/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a circular permitting placement of external Chief and Additional Examiners for University answer sheet valuation. Court closed the petition relying on Respondents' emergency justification and subsequent adherence to statutes, declining further orders.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition stands closed and connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. No order as to costs.

S.Madhankumar Vs Manonmaniyam Sundaranar — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.24842 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.24842 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)Nos.17963 & 17964 of 2016

¶8

S.Madhankumar ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Represented by its Registrar, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012.

¶11

2.Vice Chancellor, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012.

¶12

3.Controller of Examination, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012. ... Respondents

¶13

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 pertaining to the impugned order in MSU.No.CoE/Co.ord/Exam/2016, dated 01.12.2016, passed by the third respondent and quash the same.

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.24842 of 2016

¶17

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Saravanan

¶18

For Respondents : M/s.H.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging a circular issued by the third respondent herein, under which, the third respondent had permitted the Principals of aided and unaided Colleges to engage their respective teachers as Chief Examiner and Additional Examiner for valuing the answer sheets of the students of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University.

¶21

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the valuation of answer sheets of the students of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University cannot be outsourced by the third respondent herein. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that a panel of examiners has to be prepared by the Board of Studies and it should be approved by the Syndicate. Only the Examiners from the said panel could be permitted to evaluate the answer sheets of the students of

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.24842 of 2016

¶25

Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Section 24(42) of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act and contended that it is the exclusive power of the Syndicate to approve the panel of Examiners. This power of the Syndicate cannot be usurped by the third respondent herein and he cannot appoint Chief Examiners and Additional Examiners.

¶26

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 had contended that during December 2016, University teachers had gone on a flash strike and only in order to meet the emergency situation this arrangement was made for that semester. Thereafter, this guideline has not been utilized by the University. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, the University is strictly following the University statutes in appointing the Chief Examiner and the Assistant Examiner for evaluating the answer sheets of the students studying in Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. Hence, the learned Counsel for the respondents had contended that the apprehension of the writ petitioner is unfounded.

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.24842 of 2016

¶30

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the

¶31

respondent that a circular impugned in the writ petition is only for December 2016 valuation, in view of the emergency situation and they are strictly following the University statues, no further orders are called for in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.

¶32

01.12.2022

¶33

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No btr

¶34

¶35

1.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Represented by its Registrar, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012.

¶36

2.Vice Chancellor, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012.

¶37

3.Controller of Examination, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012.

¶38

4/5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.24842 of 2016

¶41

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶42

btr

¶43

Order made in W.P(MD)No.24842 of 2016

¶44

01.12.2022

¶45

5/5

¶46

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

S.Madhankumar v. Manonmaniyam Sundaranar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Madhankumar v. Manonmaniyam Sundaranar

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

S.Rajkumar, Vs the Executive Engineer Cum

K.Raja Vs the Executive Engineer Cum

G. Rajaprabhu. Vs Elamurugan

Puvaneswari, Vs the District Collector

A. Thangamalai Vs the District Collector

R.Karmegam, Vs the Commissioner