Madras High Court
Beebiasha vs The Registrar on 27 November, 2017
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.11.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P(MD)No.9000 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2012
Beebiasha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar,
Anna University of
Technology Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli ? 620 024.
2.The Controller of Examination,
Anna University of
Technology Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli ? 620 024.
3.The Registrar,
Anna University,
Chennai.
4.The Controller of Examination,
Anna University,
Chennai.
5.The Principal,
MNSK College of Engineering,
Vallathirakkottai Post,
Pudukkottai District.
6.The Principal,
Sri Bharathi Engineering College for Women,
Kaikurichi,
Pudukkottai District. ...
Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to
declare the results of the petitioner with regard to III Semester M.E.
Examination results at once and further direct the respondents 1 to 4 to
receive the project work to be submitted by the petitioner and evaluate the
same in accordance with law.
!For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan for R.1 to R.4
Mr.B.Jameel Arasu for R.6
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to declare her results, with regard to the III Semester M.E. Examination and further to direct them to receive the project work to be submitted by the petitioner and evaluate the same, in accordance with law.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she had completed B.Tech., Information Technology during April'2010 and she got admission for full time M.E., course in Computer and Communication Engineering at the fifth respondent college. When the petitioner was doing her III Semester M.E., course, the authorities had initiated charges against her, for pursuing her full time Post Graduate course, while working as a regular faculty in sixth respondent college. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she was not employed with the sixth respondent at all. After some rounds of litigation and after the intervention by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to write the III Semester examination, but the results were withheld by the authorities and further, the authorities had intimated the petitioner to redo the theory papers of III Semester. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court, for the aforesaid relief.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition, is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.13255 of 2011 and 8472 of 2012, dated 07.10.2013 and hence, he prayed for extending the same benefits to the petitioner also.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. It is useful to reproduce hereunder the relevant portions of the order of this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.13255 of 2011 and 8472 of 2012, dated 07.10.2013:
"6.As of now, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, absolutely there is no material to show that the petitioner was working in the third respondent polytechnic college after 30.04.2010. By a mere assumption or surmise, without there being any material, in an arbitrary manner, the first respondent / Anna University of Technology Tiruchirapalli, had held that the petitioner was working under the third respondent after 30.04.2010. In my considered opinion, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain, as it has been held by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, cited supra. The petitioner is entitled for the same relief, because the first respondent / Anna University of Technology Trichirapalli, in this case also, instead of taking action against the third respondent, has taken action wrongly against the petitioner. Because of the above act of the first respondent, now the petitioner, who is a regular student of the college, has put to mental agony and sufferings. Because of this proceedings, her results were also withheld. As a result, her future prospects have been materially affected. Had the first respondent been vigilant to verify the attendance register, salary register, etc., of the third respondent before taking a decision in this matter, truth would have come to light. Without doing the above said exercises, which are required in law, the first respondent has punished the petitioner in an arbitrary manner.
7. After issuance of the order impugned in W.P.(MD).No.11325 of 2011, the Anna University, Trichy was merged with the Anna University, Chennai. The Controller of Examinations, Anna University, Chennai, has again passed another order by his proceedings in Letter No.1305/COE/C20/2010, dated 11.06.2012, wherein for the same allegation the following punishment has been imposed;
?(i)The 3rd semester results will be published in January 2013.
(ii)The students may submit the project work in June 2012, since the colleges have permitted the students to take up the project work. However, the viva-voce examination will be conducted in June 2013 only.
(iii)If the students, who are debarred for one academic year, qualify for the degree by April/May 2013 examination, they are also eligible for First Class / First Class with Distinction as a special case subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions.
(iv)If the students have already paid the fees for the IV semester of the programme during 2011-2012, no fees should be collected by the college for him / her when he / she rejoins the programme during 2012-2013.
(v) The hall tickets issued for the June / July 2012 examinations to the full time teacher candidates who have enrolled as full time students of M.E./M.Tech. Programmes (2010 batch only) are withdrawn by Anna University, Chennai. However, a fresh hall tickes will be issued to eligible candidates to enable to write the arrear examinations of first and second semesters."
8. Challenging the said order, the petitioner came up with W.P.(MD).No.8472 of 2012 before this Court. This order also has been passed without any material and without any enquiry. For the same reasons, which I have dealt with herein above, I hold that it is an arbitrary order.
9. In such view of the matter, for the mental agony caused to the petitioner and the resultant suffering of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to impose cost on the first respondent / the Controller of Examinations, Anna University, Chennai.
10. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order in the writ petition No.13225 of 2011 and the impugned order in the writ petition No.8472 of 2012 are set aside. The Controller of Examinations, Anna University, Chennai, is directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
6. In the light of the above said order of this Court, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the University / respondents 1 to 4 to declare the results of the petitioner, in respect of the III Semester M.E., Examination forthwith, if not already declared, with a further direction to receive the project work of the petitioner and evaluate the same. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Registrar, Anna University of Technology Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli ? 620 024.
2.The Controller of Examination, Anna University of Technology Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli ? 620 024.
3.The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai.
4.The Controller of Examination, Anna University, Chennai.
.