Disposed

Idhayam College of Education v. Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University

Madras HC8 Jul 2022WP(MD)/3814/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writing for the Madurai Bench, Justice G.R. Swaminathan directed the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University to admit 10 disputed students pending syndicate approval while permitting them to write the second semester examinations.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to admit 10 students pending syndicate approval and to allow them to write second semester examinations.

Idhayam College of Education Vs Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.3814 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3814 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)No.3314 of 2022

¶7

Idhayam College of Education, Represented by its Chairman P.Periannan, Kannanur Post, Thuraiyur – 621 206, Thiruchirappalli District.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University, (TNTEU) represented by its Registrar, Gangaiammankoil Street, Karapakkam, Chennai.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to permit the 10 students (students list enclosed separately) which were duly submitted at the time of verification by the respondent and consequently, allow them to appear for the forthcoming examinations which is to be held from 28-02-2022 to 04-03-2022.

¶13

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

¶14

1/5

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.3814 of 2022

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panner Selvam for Mr.V.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.F.Deepak Standing Counsel

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶19

The writ petitioner is imparting Education in B.Ed Degree Course. The case on hand concerns the academic year 2021-22. The maximum intake of students permissible in the case of the petitioner’s Institute is 100. According to the petitioner, they had admitted 100 students before the cutoff date i.e., 13.12.2021. This is contested by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University. According to him, they received the University list containing only names of 90 students before the cutoff date.

¶20

Be that as it may, the respondent University granted approval for the admission of only 90 students. Seeking approval for remaining 10 students, this present writ petition has been filed. The said 10 students had however written the first semester examinations also. The results are yet to be published.

¶21

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

¶22

2/5

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.3814 of 2022

¶24

Now the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the second semester examinations are to be held from 15.07.2022. My attention is drawn to the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Principal Seat in W.P.Nos. 4491 of 2022 etc., batch. The Paragraph 37 of the said order reads as follows:

¶25

“ 37.That apart, since the chart that was circulated in the second batch of Writ Petitions in regard to the number of seats allotted and the dates of compliances by the College in regard to the submission of the applications have not been provided in the first batch of Writ Petitions, there is a direction to R1 to verify compliances of the respective colleges with the cut off dates that were provided and, subject to the Syndicate granting approval, admit only those students in respect of whom applications, fee, as well as other required compliances were made in time.”

¶26

I am inclined to adopt the very same approach in the present case also.

¶27

The petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation setting out their prayer for approval of the admission of the petition mentioned 10 students. It is for the respondent University to consider the same and grant approval. It is stated that the agenda has to be placed before syndicate in its next meeting. Since this process may take some time the respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to write the second semester examination. I make it clear that the declaration of the first semester results as well as the second semester results

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.3814 of 2022

¶30

will depend upon the decision of the syndicate. The petitioner through his counsel make it clear that they will not claim any equities. The respondent University shall make the decision within a period of next eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

With this direction to the respondent University, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶32

08.07.2022

¶33

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No mga

¶34

Note: Issue Order Copy on 11.07.2022.

¶35

¶36

The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University (TNTEU) , Gangaiammankoil Street, Karapakkam, Chennai.

¶37

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

¶38

4/5

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.3814 of 2022

¶40

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶41

mga

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.3814 of 2022

¶43

08.07.2022

¶44

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

¶45

5/5

Idhayam College of Education v. Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idhayam College of Education v. Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Hakkim Vs the Government of India

[email protected] Vs the Tahsildar

Suresh Vs the District Collector

Muthukrishnan P.S. Vs the Director of Town and Country Planning

M.Arockiyadoss Vs M.Gnanamirtham

Indra Ganesan College of Education Vs Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University