Dismissed

Hemalatha.a.R v. The Union of India

Madras HC13 Feb 2023WP(MD)/51/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for participation in MBBS stray counselling post the deadline. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Supreme Court's timeline for counselling is sacrosanct and admits no relaxation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for failure to apply within the sacrosanct timeline stipulated by the Supreme Court of India for completion of medical counselling.

Hemalatha.a.R Vs The Union of India — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.51 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.51 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.68 of 2023

A.R.Hemalatha

... Petitioner

1.The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Education, New Delhi.

¶12

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principle Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

3.The Member Secretary, The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), Raj Path Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110001.

¶14

4.The Director of Medical Education, The Directorate of Medical Education, No.162, Periyar.EVR High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P(MD)No.51 of 2023

¶18

5.The Chairman, Selection Committee, Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the institutional stary counseling for admission to MBBS Seat within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Geethanjali

¶22

for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.D.Saravanan Central Government Standing Counsel for R.1

¶24

Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader for R.2 & R.4

¶25

Mr.S.Ramesh Standing Counsel for R.3

¶26

Mrs.D.Sneka Standing Counsel for R.5

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶29

2.The petitioner seeks participation in the institutional stray counselling

¶30

for admission to MBBS seat. The learned Special Government Pleader points

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶32

W.P(MD)No.51 of 2023

¶33

out that as per the time line stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme of India, the entire counselling process must be completed by 29.12.2022. The petitioner has come to this Court only on 02.01.2023. Since the time lines in the matter

¶34

of medical counselling are sacrosanct, they do not admit of any relaxation or breach.

¶35

3.In this view of the matter, I am not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

13.02.2023

¶37

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MGA

¶38

¶39

1.The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Education, New Delhi.

¶40

2.The Principle Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶41

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

¶42

3/4

¶43

W.P(MD)No.51 of 2023

¶44

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶45

MGA

¶46

3.The Director of Medical Education, The Directorate of Medical Education, No.162, Periyar.EVR High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai.

¶47

W.P(MD)No.51 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)No.68 of 2023

¶48

13.02.2023

¶49

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

¶50

4/4

Hemalatha.a.R v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemalatha.a.R v. The Union of India

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

Venkatesh R S Vs The District Collector

Ravi R Vs The District Revenue Officer

Sureshkumar S Vs The Branch Manager

Muthu Vs The District Collector

Chinnapponnammal Vs The District Collector

Karuppiah.M Vs The District Collector