Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

C.Guruprasath Vs the Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
C.Guruprasath Vs the DirectorC.Guruprasath v. the Director

Disposed¶33

C.Guruprasath v. the Director

Madras HC31 Oct 2025WP(MD)/22979/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; single judge C.Kumarappan; decided 31.10.2025; WP(MD)No.22979 of 2019 with W.M.P(MD)Nos.19723 to 19726 of 2019; apprenticeship training scheme; National Apprenticeship Training Scheme (NATS); Board of Apprenticeship Training (SR); Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum/VPM/TNV/Nagercoil); rejection of online application without reasons; OBC Category shortlist SL.No.270-A; one-year apprenticeship; nothing survives for adjudication; writ petition closed; no counter filed by first respondent; Article 226; Certiorarified Mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Although the petitioner's grievance that no reason was assigned for rejection was regarded as reasonable, nothing survived for further adjudication because the apprenticeship training was only for one year, the candidature had been rejected in 2019 itself, and the first respondent had filed no counter.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature without assigning any reason warrants quashing of the impugned order and inclusion of the petitioner in the shortlisted candidates as SL.No.270-A under OBC Category. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Although the petitioner's grievance that no reason was assigned for rejection was regarded as reasonable, nothing survived for further adjudication because the apprenticeship training was only for one year, the candidature had been rejected in 2019 itself, and the first respondent had filed no counter.

Key takeaways

In view of these peculiar circumstances, the Court found no merit for adjudication and closed the writ petition along with the connected miscellaneous petitions.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Article 226, Certiorarified Mandamus) by G.Guruprasath challenging the rejection of his online application under the apprenticeship training scheme involving the National Apprenticeship Training Scheme (NATS), the Board of Apprenticeship Training (SR) and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations, seeking inclusion in the shortlisted candidates as SL.No.270-A under OBC Category. The Court noted that the apprenticeship was of one year's duration, the candidature had been rejected in 2019 itself, and the first respondent had filed no counter; observing that the grievance of non-assignment of reasons was reasonable but that nothing survived for further adjudication, the Court found no merit for adjudication and closed the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P(MD)Nos.19723 to 19726 of 2019). No relief was granted.

A

W.P(md)No.22979 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated:31.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

WP(MD)No.22979 of 2019 and

W.M.P(MD)Nos.19723 to 19726 of 2019

G.Guruprasath

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director

National Apprenticeship Training Scheme(NATS) Instituted by Board of Apprenticeship Training/ Practical Training

Ministry of Human Resource Development Government of India,

New Delhi.

2.The Director of Training The Board of Apprenticeship Training(SR) Southern Region, Taramani, Chennai-600 113.

3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kum) Ltd., Kumbakonam-1.

4.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (VPM) Ltd., Villupuram.

5.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (TNV) Ltd., Tirunelveli.

1/4

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

W.P(md)No.22979 of 2019

6.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Nagercoil.

... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of 1^st respondent in the nature of status of petitioner rejecting his online application published in the website dated nil quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to include the petitioner in the shortlisted candidates published on Nil as SL.No.270-A under OBC Category in between SL.No.270 and SL.No.271.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai For R1 & 2 : Mr.C.Nandagopal Standing Counsel For R3& R4 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For R5 & R6 : No appearance *****

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the apprenticeship training scheme provided by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corportion to the candidates, who passed their degree/diploma during 2017, 2018 and 2019.

2/4

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

W.P(md)No.22979 of 2019

2.While perusing the notification, it is seen that the duration of the apprenticeship is for a period of one year. In the case in hand, admittedly, the petitioner's candidature was rejected during 2019 itself.

3.The main grievance of the petitioner is that while rejecting the petitioner's candidature, no reason has been assigned. Though such submission is reasonable, the first respondent so far did not file any counter and furthermore at this length of time, this Court is of the view that, nothing survives for further adjudication, as the very apprenticeship training is for one year.

4.In view of such peculiar circumstances, this Court does not find any merit for an adjudication. Hence, this Writ Petition stands closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

31.10.2025

Ns

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

3/4

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

W.P(md)No.22979 of 2019

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Ns

WP(MD)No.22979 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.19723 to 19726 of 2019

31.10.2025

4/4

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature without assigning any reason warrants quashing of the impugned order and inclusion of the petitioner in the shortlisted candidates as SL.No.270-A under OBC Category.¶32
2.
Whether, given that the apprenticeship training is for one year and the petitioner's candidature was rejected in 2019 itself, anything survives for further adjudication.¶32
The court held
Although the petitioner's grievance that no reason was assigned for rejection was regarded as reasonable, nothing survived for further adjudication because the apprenticeship training was only for one year, the candidature had been rejected in 2019 itself, and the first respondent had filed no counter.ratio¶32

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶24

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the 1st respondent in the nature of a status rejecting the petitioner's online application, published on the website without a stated date, which the petitioner sought to have quashed along with directions to include him in the shortlisted candidates as SL.No.270-A under OBC Category.¶24
1st respondent (The Director, National Apprenticeship Training Scheme (NATS))
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's candidature was rejected during 2019 itself; the apprenticeship notified was of one year's duration.¶31
Prior proceeding
The first respondent had not filed any counter affidavit by the time of the hearing.¶32

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
G.Guruprasath¶8
Mr.K.Appadurai
respondent
The Director, National Apprenticeship Training Scheme(NATS) Instituted by Board of Apprenticeship Training/ Practical Training, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi.¶12
Mr.C.Nandagopal Standing Counsel
respondent
The Director of Training, The Board of Apprenticeship Training(SR) Southern Region, Taramani, Chennai-600 113.¶15
Mr.C.Nandagopal Standing Counsel
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kum) Ltd., Kumbakonam-1.¶16
Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (VPM) Ltd., Villupuram.¶17
Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (TNV) Ltd., Tirunelveli.¶18
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Nagercoil.¶22

Coram

AI extract

C.KUMARAPPANauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 31 Oct 2025 · October
Registered: 30 Oct 2019
Case no.: WP(MD)/22979/2019
CNR: HCMD011024312019
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: C.kumarappan
Disposal: CLOSED
Case type: WP(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from C.kumarappan

T.Thangakodi Vs Teachers Recruitment Board
28 Oct 2025
P.Sudalaimuthu Vs Teachers Recruitment Board
28 Oct 2025
P. Panjavarnam Vs Teachers Recruitment Board
28 Oct 2025
R. Ganeshkumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu
31 Oct 2025
P.Balamurugan Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu
31 Oct 2025
K.Kannaki Vs the State of Tamil Nadu
31 Oct 2025

Cite this judgement

C.Guruprasath v. the Director, WP(MD)/22979/2019 (MAD), decided on 31 October 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order of the 1st respondent in the nature of a status rejecting the petitioner's online application, published on the website without a stated date, which the petitioner sought to have quashed along with directions to include him in the shortlisted candidates as SL.No.270-A under OBC Category.1st respondent (The Director, National Apprenticeship Training Scheme (NATS))
The petitioner's candidature was rejected during 2019 itself; the apprenticeship notified was of one year's duration.
The first respondent had not filed any counter affidavit by the time of the hearing.

View full history

Bench / Coram

C.KUMARAPPAN

Parties & counsel