R.Santana Krishnan, v. The Controller Of Examinations

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.09.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P.No. 22860 of 2018 and W.M.P. No.26703 of 2018 R. Santana Krishnan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.

The Controller of Examinations, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2.

Mr. K. Sathyanarayan, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Management Studies, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

..Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to evaluate the petitioner's thesis at the earliest consequentially conduct the Viva Voce. For Petitioner : M/s. Udaya Kumar For Respondents: Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, for R1

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed, directing the respondents to evaluate the petitioner's thesis at the earliest and consequently to conduct Viva Voce.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he successfully enrolled as a Ph.D Candidate. As part of the course, he completed his data analysis and posted it to Dr. Professor Sathyanarayana. However, Dr. Sathyanarayana did not invite him for further discussion.

4. The petitioner further states that he simultaneously submitted his Thesis titled "A Study of Buying Behaviour of Students Shoppers in Mega Shopping Malls". It is stated that as per the procedure, he has submitted his Synopsis in person to the Doctoral Committee and also prepared a rough draft of Thesis.

5. Though the petitioner made ready the Thesis for submission to the Controller of Exams, it has to be formally done by his guide through the Head of the Department. However, his guide Dr. Sathyanarayana wantonly evaded and the petitioner experienced various difficulties in evaluating his Thesis and a lot of time being wasted. Ultimately, the petitioner wanted the respondents to evaluate his Thesis as per the procedure without further delay. Hence, he made several representations, but there was no proper action taken by the University. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking the above said prayer.

6. Having regard to the grievances expressed by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the respondents shall be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.06.2018.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.06.2018 and do the needful, in accordance with law, and evaluate the Thesis by following the process known to law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

ii) If there is any practical difficulty for the first respondent to complete the process within the time stipulated this Court, it is open for him to seek further time from this Court to extend the time; and iii) it is also open to the first respondent to change the second respondent, if the allegation made against him that he has not done any thing as it was expected from him, is true.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

pds/pvs To The Controller of Examinations, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

+1cc to Mr.R.Udayakumar, Advocate SR.NO.60751 +1cc to Mr.Stalin Ahimanyu, Advocate SR.NO.60987 KS(Co) sm:18.9.2018 W.P.No. 22860 of 2018