Madras High Court
S.Austin Blessie vs The Tamilnadu Dr.Mgr Medical ... on 30 August, 2013
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-8-2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.1091 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 S.Austin Blessie .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Tamilnadu Dr.MGR Medical University, Rep. By its Registrar, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. 2. The Christian Medical College Vellore, Rep. By its Director, Ida Scudder Road, Vellore-632 004. 3. MMM College of Health Sciences (A Unit of Madras Medical Mission), No.9, Block No:11, Kannadasan Salai, Mogappair East, Chennai-600 037. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to return and issue forthwith, all relevant certificates of the petitioner without insisting for any sponsor obligation. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.Anand David (R1) Mr.Krishna Srinivasan for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam Associates (R2) M/s.Paul and Paul (R3) O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to return and to issue, forthwith, all the relevant certificates to the petitioner, without insisting on any sponsor obligation.
3. The petitioner has stated that she had joined Bachelor of Nursing course in the second respondent college, in the year, 2007. The second respondent college is affiliated to the first respondent University. As the petitioner is a meritorious candidate she had been sponsored by the CSI Diocese of Vellore, for being admitted in the second respondent college. The said sponsorship is coupled with the obligation that, after the completion of the course, the candidate shall compulsorily work for two years, in any one of the Diocesan hospitals. The petitioner was not satisfied with the course which she had chosen. However, she had completed the course and had passed the final examination, on 3.3.2012. Thereafter, she had approached her sponsor, namely, the CSI Diocese of Vellore, to relieve her from the obligations entailing the sponsorship. The petitioner had planned to go for higher studies, in a different subject, like hospital administration. Therefore, she had approached the second respondent college to break the sponsorship obligation and to issue all certificates like the transfer certificate, course completion certificate and the provisional certificate, submitted at the time of her admission. However, the second respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner, by a communication, dated 6.10.2012. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the second respondent cannot refuse to return the original certificates submitted by the petitioner at the time of her admission in the second respondent college. Further, the second respondent college is also obliged to issue the transfer certificate and the conduct certificate, which the petitioner is entitled to receive.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also submitted that the sponsorship obligations would not bind the petitioner as the Reverend Bishop, CSI Diocese of Vellore, had agreed to break the sponsorship agreement of the petitioner, as a special case. While so, the second respondent college cannot deny the request of the petitioner for the issuance of the necessary certificates, especially, in view of the fact that the petitioner has opted to join another course.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also submitted that the decision made by this court, in the order passed, in Dr.Biju Paul Vs. Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and Christian Medical College, MANU/TN/0359/2007, cannot be a binding precedent in law. This court, in the present case, could take a different view, with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, as the decision of the Division Bench relied on by this court, in its earlier order, in Dr.Biju Paul Vs. Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and Christian Medical College, MANU/TN/0359/2007, does not talk about the issue of maintainability of the writ petition. He had also submitted that the contract entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent college, cannot be said to be valid in the eye of law, as the petitioner was a minor at the time of the signing of the said contract. He had also stated that the contract could be challenged, based on certain valid reasons.
7. The learned counsel had further stated that the right to education is a universal right and therefore, all educational institutions, including the second respondent college, would come under the purview of this court exercising its powers, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the following decisions to support his contention that the present writ petition is maintainable in the eye of law.
i) A.John Paul and two others Vs. State, rep. By the Inspector of Police, 2012 (4) CTC 826.
ii) W.P.No.9401 of 2008, dated 11.12.2008 (Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar Vs. The Governing Council of American College, represented by Bishop and Chairman, Madurai).
iii) Dr.S.P.Maharajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, The Director, Directorate of Medical College Education and The Dean Stanley Medical College, MANU/TN/1312/2008.
iv) G.Vidya Vs. The Registrar and another, CD 2009 MHC 2537.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, in limine, as it is not maintainable in the eye of law. He had submitted that this court would not be empowered, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus against a private college established and administered by a religious minority, as per Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Further, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, relates to a private contract entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent college
9. It is a well settled position in law that the powers vested in this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be exercised to enforce a contractual obligation or to abrogate the same. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the contract entered into by her, it may be open to her to file a civil suit to set aside the contract or to enforce the obligations arising from it.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent college had relied on a decision of this court, made in Dr.Biju Paul Vs. Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and Christian Medical College, MANU/TN/0359/2007. The said order had arisen in respect of facts and circumstances which are similar to those which had arisen for the consideration of this court in the present writ petition. This court had considered the various decisions of the courts of law and had arrived at the conclusion that a writ petition cannot be filed in respect of certain obligations that had arisen out of a contract. In fact, in the present case, the petitioner is attempting to distance herself from the obligations that had arisen from and out of the contract signed by her with the second respondent college. It would not be open to the petitioner to claim that the second respondent college has a statutory obligation to return the relevant certificates, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, especially, in view of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
11. It is an admitted fact that the second respondent college is a religious minority institution and that it is not aided, either by the State government or by the Central Government. While so, it would not be open to the petitioner to state that the duty of imparting of universal education would make it obligatory on the part of the second respondent college to perform certain actions, which are contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract concluded between the parties concerned. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is not maintainable.
12. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this court is of the considered view that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. The present writ petition has been filed, by the petitioner, seeking to negate one of the main obligations to be performed by the petitioner, by a contract entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent college. As such, it would not be open to the petitioner to pray for a direction from this court, by way of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent college to issue certain certificates, which do not belong to the petitioner.
13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had entered into a sponsorship contract, creating certain obligations to be fulfilled by the petitioner. Having entered into such a contract, it would not be open to the petitioner to pray for a direction from this court to the second respondent college to act in a manner contrary to the terms and conditions of the said contract. Even otherwise, it would not be open to the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court to amend or to abrogate the terms and conditions agreed to by the parties to the contract.
14. It is also noted that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner do not support the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, as they differ from the present case in hand. The facts and circumstances in which the present case had arisen are different in nature from the facts and circumstances relating to the cases cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Further, from the decision of this court,in Dr.Biju Paul Vs. Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and Christian Medical College, MANU/TN/0359/2007, it was clear that the second respondent college would not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this court to differ from its earlier view expressed in its decision, made in Dr.Biju Paul Vs. Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and Christian Medical College, MANU/TN/0359/2007. This court is also of the view that the rights of the second respondent college, vested in it under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, cannot be taken away by issuing a Writ of Mandamus, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index:Yes/No 30-8-2013 Internet:Yes/No csh To
1. The Tamilnadu Dr.MGR Medical University, Rep. By its Registrar, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
2. The Christian Medical College Vellore, Rep. By its Director, Ida Scudder Road, Vellore-632 004.
3. MMM College of Health Sciences (A Unit of Madras Medical Mission), No.9, Block No:11, Kannadasan Salai, Mogappair East, Chennai-600 037.
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh Writ Petition No.1091 of 2013 30-8-2013