1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD).No.658 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 The Principal, Jayaraj Annapackiam CSI, Polytechnic College, Nazareth, Vallanddam 628 617, Thoothukudi District. : Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.G.Jerolph Vincent, III year Student, Jayaraj Annapackiam CSI, Polytechnic College, Sathankulam Road, Nazareth, Vallanddam 628 617, Thoothukudi District now at No.9, Masilir Street, Nazareth 628 617, Tuticorin District. : 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai. : 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23.06.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.2142 of 2011 on the file of this Court. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent, to allow the petitioner to attend the III Year (VI) Semester class in Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Branch for the academic year 2010-2011 and complete the course by taking practical and theoretical exainations along with his batch mates. For Appellant : Mr.S.Subbiah For Respondent 1 : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondent 2 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY P.JYOTHIMANI, J] The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.06.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.2142 of 2011, by which the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent – student for a direction against the respondents therein to allow him to attend III year (VI Semester) Class in Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Branch for the academic year 2010 – 2011 and complete the course came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 on the ground that by virtue of the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge on 09.03.2011, the first respondent – student has not only attended VI Semester examination, but also he has attended both practical and theoretical examinations and directed the respondents therein to publish the results of the first respondent – student and hand over the Mark Sheet, Transfer Certificate and other relevant particulars to the first respondent – student. 2. The case of the appellant – management is that the first respondent – student, while undergoing VI Semester course, which has commenced on 03.12.2010, has eloped with one of the girl students, and therefore, an action was sought to be taken against the first respondent – student by the appellant – management. It is the further case of the appellant – management that after 07.02.2011, the first respondent – student did not attend the classes. Therefore, according to the appellant – management, in spite of specific stand taken by the appellant – management in the counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge that the first respondent – student has secured only 61.38% of attendance in the VI Semester examination as against 80%, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition, which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant – management, is not sustainable in law. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant – management would rely upon various Judgments including a latest Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary U.P.S.C. & another vs. S.Krishna Chaitanya rendered in Civil Appeal No.6349 of 2011, dated 05.08.2011, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has heavily come down against the sympathetic attitudes taken by the Courts in giving interim direction to the authorities concerned to permit the students to write examination without ascertaining as to whether the concerned candidate has got minimum required attendance as per the Rules. 4. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent – student that it is not as if the first respondent – student was not willing to attend the classes and he was effectively prevented by the appellant – management. According to him, two statements were obtained from the said girl student, which are contrary in nature, which itself shows the intention of the appellant in victimizing the first respondent – student, who belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. The first respondent – student has also made a complaint to the Director of Technical Education – second respondent as early as on 15.02.2011, informing that the appellant – management has refused to permit the first respondent – student to attend the classes. 5. We have considered the above rival submissions made by the respective learned counsel and given our anxious thought to the issues involved in this case. 6. Admittedly, the appellant – management has not taken any action in the manner known to law against the first respondent – student or the girl, who is stated to have eloped with the first respondent – student. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant – management that the steps taken by the appellant - management have become infructuous due to the reason that the first respondent – student did not attend the classes has no meaning. It is not as if the appellant – management has been left in lurch. If really the first respondent – student has committed any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 misconduct, the appellant – management, in all fairness, should have taken action against the first respondent – student by giving notice to him or to his parents. Since, no action having been taken, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent – student that the appellant – management has prevented the first respondent – student from attending the classes. 7. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that an action was sought to be taken against the first respondent – student and no action has been taken against the said girl student, who is stated to have eloped with the first respondent – student. It is seen that certain letters were obtained from the said girl and she was allowed to go out from the college quietly. This only shows the suspicious conduct on the part of the appellant – management in effectively preventing the first respondent – student from attending the courses. If really the appellant – management has not prevented the first respondent student from attending the classes, question of non – securing the required attendance does not arise. It is admitted that the first respondent – student has been regular till he has completed 5th semester, in which he has passed in the first class. Admittedly, by virtue of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, the first respondent student has not only completed the course, but also he has attended both practical and theoretical examinations. However, the results of the first respondent – student were not published. 8. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that this is not an ordinary case and this is a case of victimization, which is not appreciable on the face of it. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. In the result, the order dated 23.06.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.2142 of 2011 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (W) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai. +1. CC to Mr.S.Subbiah, Advocate, SR.No. 28016 +1. CC to Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate, SR.No. 28085 NB JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.658 of 2011 17.08.2011 TR : 18.08.2011: 3P/4C : IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/