S.J.Farith Nisha v. The Vice Chancellor
0I0N10 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 12.02.2025 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA S.J.Farith Nisha ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Vice Chancellor, 5, Dr.D.G.S. Dinakaran Salai, Chennai 600 028.
R1 deleted from the array of party respondents vide order dated 12.01.2023 made in W.P.No.991/2023
2. The Registrar, 3.The Controller of Examination (COE), ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying 1 / 6
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider the representation dated 30.12.2022 for demand of revaluation and direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to implement and facilitate the system of revaluation for PG LLM batch 2020-2022 to act upon based on the UGC (Ministry of Human Resources Development) D.O.No. 9-27/2018 (CPP-II) dated 19.07.2018 with regard to the Central Information Commission issued in order No.CIC/BANHU/A/2017/110128-BJ dated 28.03.2018 and to award of cost Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner from the Respondents. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mahendra Babu For Respondents : R1 - deleted as per court order dated 12.01.2023 M/s.Arun Kumar Rajan for RR2 & 3
ORDER
Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 30.12.2022, requesting for re-evaluation and further direct the respondents to implement the system of revaluation for PG LLM batch 2020-2022, on the basis of the UGC (Ministry of Human Resources Development) D.O.No. 9-27/2018 (CPP-II) dated 19.07.2018, with regard to the Central Information Commission order dated 28.03.2018.
2. The petitioner appeared in the fourth semester exams conducted on 2 / 6
24.08.2022 and was awaiting results. To the shock of the petitioner, he found that most of the students had failed. The petitioner along with other students therefore submitted a representation on 30.12.2022, to the respondents demanding that the answer scripts be re-evaluated. Though the respondents received representation on 02.01.2023, no effective steps were taken by the respondents. The petitioner therefore filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had appeared in the arrear exams in January 2023 and successfully completed the course on 28.03.2023. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, considering the hardship faced by the students, a system of re-evaluation had to be framed as per the guidelines of the UGC (Ministry of Human Resources Development) and therefore a direction be issued to the respondents.
4. In my view, the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to evolve system of re-evaluation cannot be entertained, because, even as per the prayer, the same is restricted to PG LLM 3 / 6
batch 2020-2022. I am therefore of the view that, nothing survives for further adjudication in the writ petition and hence, the same has become infructuous. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
12.02.2025 dsn To
1. The Registrar, 4 / 6
2.The Controller of Examination (COE), N.MALA, J.
dsn 5 / 6
12.02.2025 6 / 6