Allowed

Pushpanathan .K v. The Director (Research)

Madras HC1 Mar 2023WP(MD)/1566/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court set aside an order passed by the third respondent that was issued without hearing the petitioner. The matter was remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration with a direction to hear the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; matter remanded to respondents for fresh consideration with direction to hear the petitioner.

Pushpanathan .K Vs The Director (Research) — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1566 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1566 of 2023 and WMP(MD) Nos.1427 & 1430 of 2023

K.Pushpanathan

... Petitioner

The Director (Research), Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶11

The Vice Chancellor, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶12

The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District..

¶13

The Chairman, Institutional Academic Integrity Panel (IAIP), Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District..

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

The Principal, Government Arts College, Karur, Karur District.

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.1566 of 2023

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Ref. No.02/Dir.Res./IAIP ENQ/K12, dated 03.01.2023 and impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Ref. No. 02/Dir.Res./IAIP ENQ/K12 dated 03.01.2023 and quash the same as illegal.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran For M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 to R4 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Standing Counsel For R5 : Mr.J.Amjadkhan Government Advocate

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Challenging the impugned order of the third respondent dated

¶23

03.01.2023, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.1566 of 2023

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that he is working as Assistant Professor at the 5^th respondent College. Initially, he was appointed as Assistant Professor on 09.07.2009 at Arignar Anna Government Arts College, Vadachennimalai, Salem District and transferred to the 5^th respondent College. The petitioner completed Ph.D., from Anna University during 2011 and he was promoted to research department. The petitioner is acting as Research Advisor and under his able guidance, more than 50 research articles were published and more than 25 students completed their M.Sc., project work. While so, in the 249^th meeting held, the third respondent held that the committee of the Institutional Academic Integrity Panel, the 4^th respondent herein recommended to take appropriate action against the petitioner by cancelling his Ph.D., programme of the petitioner's student and not allowing the petitioner to be a Supervisor to any student pursuing masters, M.Phil, Ph.D., for a period of three years. The said decision was taken by the fourth respondent in its meeting held on 15.11.2022 pursuant to the complaints of the External Examiner, challenging which, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

_________ Page 3 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.1566 of 2023

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mechanically without providing any opportunity, the third respondent has passed the impugned order based on the resolution, which is not sustainable one hence, prays for appropriate direction.

¶32

The learned standing counsel would fairly submit that the present impugned order is passed without hearing the petitioner and this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶33

Considering the said submission made by the learned standing counsel, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration and the respondents are directed to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. No costs. consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶34

01.03.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR

¶35

_________ Page 4 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.1566 of 2023

¶38

¶39

The Director (Research), Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶40

The Vice Chancellor, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶41

The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District..

¶42

The Chairman, Institutional Academic Integrity Panel (IAIP), Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District..

¶43

The Principal, Government Arts College, Karur, Karur District.

¶44

_________ Page 5 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.1566 of 2023

¶47

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶48

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.1566 of 2023

¶50

01.03.2023

¶51

_________ Page 6 of 6

¶52

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

Pushpanathan .K v. The Director (Research)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpanathan .K v. The Director (Research)

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

Senthilkumar.P Vs The District Manager

Sunish Vs The Managing Director

Flora Mary S Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Manivel Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Manivel Vs the Director of School

The Kilakkarai Municipality Vs The Secretary