Madras High Court
Dr.V.Kamalam vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 12 July, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.07.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.11786 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 Dr.V.Kamalam .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, rep by the Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, rep by the Registrar, No.69,Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. 3.Tamilnadu Homeopathy Medical Council, rep by its Registrar, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106. 4.The Correspondent, Venkateswara Homeopathy Medical College, 6/117-A, mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Chennai-600 116. 5.The Principal, Venkateswara Homeopathy Medical College, 6/117-A, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Chennai-600 116. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to pay an adequate compensation of Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioner for the deliberate delay due to vindictive motives in denying the 2nd provisional certificate, degree certificate and for issuing an incomplete transfer certificate and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the illegal acts of respondents 4 and 5. For Petitioner : Ms.A.Arulmozhi For Respondents : Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, AGP for R-1 Ms.Narmada Sampath for R-2 Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi for R-3 Mr.E.Shanmugavelu for RR4 and 5 - - - - ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to pay adequate compensation of Rs.30 lakhs for the deliberate delay due to vindictive motive in denying the second provisional certificate and degree certificate and also for issuing an incomplete transfer certificate and also seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take an action against the illegal acts done by respondents 4 and 5.
2.When the writ petition came up on 26.04.2012, this court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice for the first respondent. For second respondent, Ms.Narmada Sampath, learned Standing Counsel took notice. In respect of respondents 3,4 and 5, the petitioner was directed to issue private notice. Accordingly, on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, Mr.E.Shanmugavelu, learned counsel appeared. He also filed a counter affidavit dated 13.6.2012. On behalf of the Homeopathy Medical council Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned counsel appeared and also produced a written remarks signed by the Registrar of the council dated 12.6.2012.
3.The petitioner joined BHMS course with the fifth respondent college. The said course is for the duration of 5-1/2 years with 4-1/2 years study and one year of house surgency. She passed her final examination of BHMS degree in August, 2008 and received her provisional certificate on 20.10.2008. She got herself registered in the internship in the same institute on 03.11.2008. During internship training, the fourth respondent college had prescribed a dress code for women internees stating that Saree was the only dignified dress and that other dresses were not permitted. The petitioners request for wearing Salwar Kameez was not considered. While she attended duty one day with Salwar Kameez, she was denied training from 11.11.2008. Therefore, she filed a writ petition being W.P.No.5981 of 2009 seeking for a direction to forbear respondents 4 and 5 from imposing the dress code without any authority and to allow her to complete internship by wearing Salwar Kameez and Chudidar. The said writ petition came to be allowed by an order of this court dated 30.6.2009 (since reported in 2009 (7) MLJ 253 [V.Kamalam Vs. Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and others]). This court held that this matter should have been settled between the management and students and that prescription of dress code was without any legal basis. Therefore, respondents 4 and 5 were directed not to insist upon the petitioner to wear only Saree and to permit her to wear Salwar Kameez and Chudidar and to attend internship. It was only after the order of this court, she was allowed to continue her internship from 16.07.2009 and that too they started ill-treating the petitioner ever since she came back to the college. Because of denial of doing internship on the basis of some unreasonable restriction, the petitioner could not continue internship form 11.11.2008 to 15.07.2009. She had completed her internship only on 15.07.2010 whereas her batch mates had completed it in November, 2009. Even after completion of internship, she was not given the second provisional certificate for course completion inspite of her several requests. Her juniors who have completed internship after 15.7.2010 had received the second provisional certificate and registered it with the third respondent council. Thus she was not able to register for practice and to apply for degree certificate even after a lapse of more than six months after completion of internship.
4.She filed another writ petition in W.P.No.1204 of 2011 seeking for a direction to issue second provisional certificate and to grant her seniority in the registration of BHMS with effect from the date of completion of internship. During the pendency of the writ petition, she received the provisional certificate and compulsory rotatory internship certificate on 04.04.2011, i.e., almost after nine months after completion of the course. This court in that writ petition directed the petitioner to make an application for registration of her degree based on internship certificate within one week and on such application being made, the council was directed to register her name from the date of completion of internship, i.e. 15.7.2010. The petitioner submitted her application on 12.04.2011 pursuant to the order of this court. The third respondent based on internship certificate issued by the college and based on the representation, registered her name only prospectively from 19.04.2011. They also filed a writ appeal against the said order and the writ appeal is still pending.
5.The petitioner met the fifth respondent for issuance of the transfer certificate. They had issued the transfer certificate on 4.4.2011. In the transfer certificate, all entries were not filled up. For example, against the column for conduct, it was left blank and against the column for certification of full payment of fees and other emoluments, it was also left blank inspite of collecting the entire amount and without dues. These blanks were given deliberately and intended to cause damage to future studies and career opportunity of the petitioner. The petitioner met the fifth respondent and requested him to issue a fresh transfer certificate. The fifth respondent had advised the petitioner to wait until degree certificate is received from the university, sot that they will issue a fresh transfer certificate to her along with the degree certificate. Even the degree certificate was not given to her after the convocation was over during November 2011. She made a representation under the Right to Information Act. The second respondent on 08.03.2012 had informed her that her name was included in the convocation of the University held on 03.11.2011 under the category of in absentia and the degree certificate was dispatched to the fourth respondent college on 01.12.2011.
6.Again the petitioner made a representation for the issuance of degree certificate to the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent who was keeping the matter pending, suddenly called her over phone and instructed her to collect the degree certificate. But even after the issuance of the degree certificate, they refused to issue a fresh transfer certificate by filling up all columns. All these delays were caused by the respondents deliberately with a view to harass her as she had earlier moved the court challenging the dress code prescribed by them. The counsel for the petitioner also stated that under the International Convention of Elimination of all forms of discrimination against Women (CEDAW), it has been made clear that women cannot be discriminated in any form and still, respondents have shown discrimination.
7.In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th and 5th respondents, in respect of the blank columns in the transfer certificate, it was stated that the petitioner would have brought it to the notice of the authorities for rectification and it was done by oversight and not with an ulterior motive. The college never took any vindictive action. As soon as degree certificate was produced, she was asked to come to the college to collect the same and there was no delay.
8.It was stated by the third respondent Council that the petitioner had registered her name on 19.04.2011 with the council. As per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Homeopathy System of Medicine and Practitioners of Homeopathy Act, 1971 and Rules, the certificate of registration will be issued to students after furnishing degree or second provisional pass certificate from the recognized medical university. The second provisional certificate was issued by the university on 22.03.2011 and she had applied to the counsel on 12.04.2011. Accordingly, the certificate of registration was issued to her on 19.04.2011. The question of any retrospective registration cannot be considered.
9.As per the stand of the petitioner, the matter relating to retrospective registration is pending in an appeal in W.A.No.1728 of 2011. Therefore, that issue cannot be gone into. In respect of other issue, there cannot be said to be any delay in issuance of the degree certificate belatedly. As seen above, immediately after the convocation, she was called by phone and her certificate was issued. With reference to issuance of transfer certificate, certainly the stand taken by the respondents that it was an inadvertent omission cannot be accepted. It is only after coming to the court, the respondents had issued a fresh certificate filling up all columns. As against column No.14 in respect of students conduct and character, it was not left blank, but on the contrary, a dash was found. Similarly, with reference to dues column, it was left blank. It cannot be said that it was left blank by oversight. In any such certificate, the column relating to conduct and character is most important and no such certificate will ever be issued without filling up the said column as they are crucial entries required to be filled up. Further it is an admitted practice that no transfer certificate will be issued unless students have paid all dues to the college. Because of past litigation initiated by the petitioner more than once could have naturally irritated the respondents. Therefore, they cannot escape by contending that they have nothing against the petitioner. While this court do not think that compensation of Rs.30 lakhs can be ordered for the lapse unless the petitioner showed that there was actual suffering due to the delayed issuance of the transfer certificate.
10.Since the council rule only permits prospective registration and that the earlier order directing retrospective registration is pending in the appeal, those facts cannot be gone into now. But certainly for the harassment and mental agony gone through by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondents cannot be punished. This court is not inclined to believe the stand taken by respondents 4 and 5 that it was due to oversight and not an ulterior motive.
11.In view of the above, while reserving the petitioners right for retrospective registration with the council subject to the result of the writ appeal and since the other grievances have already met, this writ petition will stand disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards cost to the petitioner for the harassment and mental agony suffered by her for the deliberate incomplete entries made in the transfer certificate and forced her to come to the court more than once. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
vvk To
1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamilnadu, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Registrar, The Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, No.69,Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
3.The Registrar, Tamilnadu Homeopathy Medical Council, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106