Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madras High Court

P.S.R.Lakshmi Bhuvaneswari Preethi vs The Registrar on 14 September, 2017

Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu

Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
										
DATED :  14.09.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
			
Writ Petition No.17562 of 2017

P.S.R.Lakshmi Bhuvaneswari Preethi
D/o.P.Subburaj					   		...  Petitioner

Vs.

1.	The Registrar
	Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University
	Chennai-600 032.

2.	The Controller of Examination
	Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University
	Chennai-600 032.

3.	Madha Dental College and Hospital
	Kundrathur, Chennai-600 050.
	Rep. by its Dean  / Principal.          	    		...  Respondents

Prayer: 
	Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to value General Pathology answer paper (Sub Code : 4206, dated 03.02.2017, 541416563, 544206 February 2017) of the petitioner viz., (1) ten marks question viz., "Define Neoplasia.  Discuss the routes of spread of malignant tumours" and (2) third 5 mark question viz., "Write notes on Blood and Bone marrow picture of Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia" properly and add the required marks as per the key answer.
		For  Petitioner  	: Mr.P.Subburaj
					  for Mr.S.Doraisamy
		For Respondents	: Mr.D.Ravichander
					  Standing counsel for R1 & R2


O R D E R

This writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief:

To direct the respondents to value General Pathology answer paper (Sub Code : 4206, dated 03.02.2017, 541416563, 544206 February 2017) of the petitioner viz., (1) ten marks question viz., "Define Neoplasia. Discuss the routes of spread of malignant tumours" and (2) third 5 mark question viz., "Write notes on Blood and Bone marrow picture of Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia" properly and add the required marks as per the key answer.

2. In fact, the petitioner is seeking for re-valuation of the answer sheets referred to in the prayer sought for in this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the revaluation of the answer papers and denial of the same would affect the carrier of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submitted that the University has already withdrawn the revaluation and retotalling procedure and in that place only double valuation is being done. Thus, he submitted that when such double valuation has already been done in the case of the petitioner, she is not entitled for third valuation. Apart from saying so, the learned counsel for the respondent University also brought to the notice of this Court about an order passed in a writ petition filed earlier by the very same petitioner in WP.No.14867 of 2017 dated 14.06.2017, wherein this Court has already found that the revaluation and retotalling is not permitted. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought for in this writ petition.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Considering the fact that the University has already withdrawn the revaluation and retotalling procedure and only double valuation is being done and further considering the fact that the said double valuation has also been done in the case of the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled for the third valuation. Apart from the said fact, it is also seen that the very same petitioner approached this Court earlier and filed a writ petition in WP.No.14867 of 2017, wherein this Court has passed an order observing that the revaluation and retotalling is not permitted to the petitioner and therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioner seeking for retotalling is not entertainable. Paragraph No.4 of the said order reads as follow:

"In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, this Court is of the view that since, revaluation and retotalling is not permitted, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and hence this writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to apply for the photocopy of the answer papers of the subjections mentioned above and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to furnish a copy of the same."

7. It is stated that the said order was not challenged by the petitioner and thus it has become final and binding on the petitioner. That being the factual position, I do not think that the petitioner can succeed in this writ petition, even though the petitioner wants to rely on an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(MD).No.8731 of 2015 dated 05.01.2016. Needless to say that each case has to be considered on its own merits, based on its facts and circumstances and therefore, by considering the present facts and circumstances as stated supra, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

14.09.2017 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No mk Note: Issue order copy on 15.09.2017 To

1. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University Chennai-600 032.

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

mk

2. The Controller of Examination Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University Chennai-600 032.

3. Madha Dental College and Hospital Kundrathur, Chennai-600 050.

Rep. by its Dean / Principal.

14.09.2017