Vinoth v. The Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.08.2023 CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE Vinoth ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Registrar Anna University Guindy Chennai - 600 025.

2.The Principal Mahendran Engineering College Mallasamuthiram Namakkal District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to study as third year B.Tech course in the second respondent - Mahendra Engineering College, Mallasamuthiram, Namakkal District, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 15.05.2023 within stipulated time may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Senthilkumar For Respondents :

Mr.U.Baranidharan Standing Counsel for Anna University Mr.Kandan Duraisamy for R2

ORDER

The petitioner herein seeks continuation of his education with the second respondent college from his IV semester. He has been removed from the college as he has involved in an occurrence of rampaging Sakthi International School at Kaniyamuthur, Kallakurichi District, when a student of that school is alleged to have died under mysterious circumstances. The petitioner was arrested and was in judicial custody for 21 days. It is in this circumstances, the second respondent did not consider it appropriate to retain the petitioner, given his track record.

2. The learned counsel for the second respondent on instructions submitted that the candidate in question is involved in certain crime, and his continued studies in the college, will not only affect his own psychology, for he may be differently treated by the rest of the students, and at the same time, it may also bring down the college estimation in the estimate of the public. He further

submitted that out of the 9 subjects in IV Semester, he absented himself for three examinations and failed in two subjects, and even in other four subjects, he failed, however he got it cleared later. He also added in the first III semesters, he failed in few subjects, and passed them only by sitting for supplementary examinations. The learned counsel submitted that without prejudice to his present stand taken by the college to remove the petitioner from the college, it will allow the petitioner to take up his supplementary examinations in order to facilitate the petitioner to join some other college of his choice.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made a statement on instructions that if the petitioner is allowed to sit for the examinations, he may join some other college.

4. In view of the same, this Court does not intend to enter a scrutiny on the correctness of the decision of the second respondent to remove the petitioner from its college, but merely requires the second respondent to let the petitioner sit for supplementary examinations for clearing his five papers in the IV semester.

5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 24.08.2023 ds

N.SESHASAYEE, J., ds 24.08.2023