Dismissed¶¶20

P.Roshan v. Selection Committee

Madras HC19 Aug 2025WP/35294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P. No.35294 of 2024; P.Roshan v. Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education and Research & Anr.; MBBS admission; N.R.I lapsed quota; provisional allotment Ref.No.231/SCS1(1)/2024; Application No.24UG911784 dated 18.10.2024; writ of mandamus; Article 226, Constitution of India; dismissed as infructuous; no costs; decided 19.08.2025 by C. Kumarappan, J.

What did the court decide?

In view of the submissions and the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner — that the petitioner stood admitted under the N.R.I lapsed quota in the second respondent college and nothing survived in the writ petition — this Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no costs. ¶¶19

P.Roshan Vs Selection Committee — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P. No.35294 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.P.No.35294 of 2024

¶7

P.Roshan .... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education and Research Kilpauk, Chennai.

¶10

2.The Principal, Sri Venkateswaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Institute, S.N.51, GNT Road, (Near Naluur Toll Plaza) Red Hills, Chennai. .... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2 nd respondent to admit the petitioner in the MBBS course, as per the provisional allotment issued by the 1 st respondent in proceedings Ref.No.231/SCS1(1)/2024 in Application No.24UG911784 dated 18.10.2024 and for consequential orders.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P. No.35294 of 2024

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srimathi For R1 : M/s.M.Sneha Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.Abishek Jenasenan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was admitted under the N.R.I lapsed quota in the 2^nd respondent college, and therefore nothing survives in the present writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶18

2. In view of the submissions and the endorsement made by the

¶19

learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as

¶20

infructuous. No costs.

¶21

19.08.2025

¶22

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No mpa

¶23

2/4