S.Vinoth Kumar, Vs The Pondicherry University

¶1

WP.No.16622 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

WP.No.16622 of 2016 and WMP.No.14359 of 2016

¶7

S.Vinoth Kumar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Pondicherry University Represented by its Registrar, Kalapet, Puducherry 605 014 2.The Director cum Principal, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Engineering College, Madagadipet, Puducherry 605 107 ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer :-

¶9

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶10

praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the mark statement issued by the respondents to the petitioner dated 19.05.2015 for exams conducted during the periods April/May 2013, November 2013 & April /

¶11

1/6

¶12

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

¶13

WP.No.16622 of 2016

¶14

May 2014 conducted by the respondents for the course B.Tech (Instrumentation and Control Engineering) as invalid insofar the subject Fluid Mechanics and Strength of Materials is concerned and consequently declare the petitioner as having passed the subject strength of Materials T 35 (4) as published by the respondents in their notice Board and in the internet dated 24.06.2013.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja

¶16

For Respondents For R1 : Mrs.A.V.Bharathi, Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.B.Balavijayan

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for declaration declaring that the

¶19

mark sheets issued by the respondents to the petitioner for the subjects Fluid Mechanics and Strength of Materials as invalid and consequently to declare that the petitioner passed in those subjects.

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

WP.No.16622 of 2016

¶23

The petitioner had joined in the second respondent institution for pursuing his Bachelor of Engineering Degree in the year 2004 specializing in Instrumentation and Control Engineering. He completed his course in the year 2008 and he got arrear in 11 papers. Thereafter he was permitted to write examination till 2011. Thereafter he had five papers arrears and once again the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examinations in the year 2014. He got failed in two papers i.e. Strength of Materials T35(4) and Fluid Mechanics & Strength of Materials T36(5). The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had appeared for the exams in the month of November 2013 and April 2014, where the questions were asked in old syllabus Strength of Materials T35(4). However, results were declared for the new syllabus “Fluid Mechanics & Strength of Materials T36(5). Regarding the other subject Computer programming also similar confusion prevailed in the year 2012. He appeared for Computer Programming T11(5) as per the old syllabus. But the questions are framed from the new syllabus for the paper of Computer Programming T16(8). Therefore, the petitioner sought for declaration declaring that the results of

¶24

3/6

¶25

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

¶26

WP.No.16622 of 2016

¶27

the two papers are invalid.

¶28

On perusal of the counter filed by the first respondent and on hearing the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, it is revealed that the petitioner got failed in two subjects i.e. Strength of Materials T35(4) and Computer Programming T11(5). Subsequently, the petitioner had appeared in the month of November 2008, May 2009, November 2009, May 2010, November 2010 & May 2011. He had appeared in the month of May 2014 and got two arrear papers. Further, from the academic year 2009-10, the old students should write the arrear papers under new syllabus or the equivalent papers and if no equivalent papers are available in the new regulations, then they have to write the same paper. As far as the petitioner, he was an outgoing student in the month of May 2008. Therefore, he has to write Computer Programming T16(8) as per the syllabus of the year 2009. Therefore, the first respondent rightly published the results. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the results published by the first respondent.

¶29

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, if the

¶30

4/6

¶31

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

¶32

WP.No.16622 of 2016

¶33

rules permit, the first respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and permit him to write the subjects i.e. Strength of Materials T35(4) and Computer Programming T11(5). Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

07.10.2025

¶35

lok (2/2)

¶36

Index:Yes/No Neutral citation:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking

¶37

5/6

¶38

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

¶39

WP.No.16622 of 2016

¶40

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶41

lok

¶42

To 1.The Pondicherry University Represented by its Registrar, Kalapet, Puducherry 605 014 2.The Director cum Principal, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Engineering College, Madagadipet, Puducherry 605 107

¶43

WP.No.16622 of 2016 and WMP.No.14359 of 2016

¶44

07.10.2025 (2/2)

¶45

6/6

¶46

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

S.Vinoth Kumar, v. The Pondicherry University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vinoth Kumar, v. The Pondicherry University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Vasantha Meena Vs the District Collector

Rahul Prasadh Vs the Registrar

Maria Siddha Medical College and Hospital Vs The Secretary

K.Ramamoorthy Vs the Tahsildar

R.Kalyanasundaram Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M.Kalaimani, Vs The Secretary to Government