S.Saravanan v. The Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.08.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.29493 of 2016 and WMP.No.25530 of 2016 S.Saravanan ..

Petitioner vs.

1 The Registrar Anna University, Chennai 600 025.

2 The Controller of Examination Anna University, Chennai 600 025.

3. The Principal Marg Institute of Design and Architecture Swarnabhoomi Velur Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District 603 302.

..

Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to make necessary corrections in the academic record of the Petitioner for the subject AR 6514 Architectural Design IV which was wrongly entered as 42 out of 100 instead of 72 out of 100 and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to permit the petitioner undergo internship training commencing from July 2016 to move on to the next semester of the B.Arch academic curriculum. For Petitioner :

Mr.V.Vasantha Kumar For Respondents:

Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram for R1 and R2

O R D E R

By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner would state that he is doing B.Arch final year in the third respondent college., and it consists of 10 semesters and he had appeared for the 5th semester

examination. It is further stated by the petitioner that as per the conditions stipulated in the regulation of the academic course, a candidate of B.Arch. shall move to the higher semester if he/she satisfies the condition in clause 12.1(V) i.e., a pass in Architectural Designer IV in Semester V. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that the internal mark for the subject AR 6514 Architectural Design IV was wrongly entered in the portal as 42 out of 100 instead of 72 out of 100 and the third respondent, conceding to the said mistake, had also addressed a letter dated 29.12.2015 to the second respondent stating that in respective of the petitioner and four others, wrong entries have been made and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it is to be corrected as 72 out of 100 instead of 42 out of 100.

3. Mr.V.Vasantha Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been granted internship by the FHD Group of Architectures, Hyderabad, vide communication dated 04.07.2016 so as to undergo training for a period of 6 months between 04.07.2016 to 30.11.2016 and on account of the said inadvertent mistake, he is not in a position to undergo internship and he has to re-do the third year subject also for no fault on his part and therefore prays for appropriate orders.

4. Per contra, Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the representation submitted by the father of the petitioner dated 16.08.2016 would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.

5.This court has considered the rival submission and also perused the materials placed before it.

6. The third respondent institution, in which the petitioner is undergoing B.Arch. course, has sent a letter to the second respondent dated 29.12.2015 informing that there are changes in the internal marks for Tvl.E.Gowtham and K.Gowtham studying in first year and Tvl.Patrick Miranda, S.Narendran and S.Saravanan/petitioner herein for the third year and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the internal marks for AR6514 Architectural Design IV was 42 out of 100 instead of 72 and therefore requested them to rectify the assessment marks entered in the portal. The father of the petitioner, in this regard, has also submitted a representation dated 16.08.2016 to the first respondent.

7. A perusal of the typed set of documents would disclose that in similar facts and circumstances this Court, vide order dated 26.05.2016 made in W.P.No.18448 of 2016 [Patrick Miranda v. The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai-600 025 and others] had disposed of the writ petition directing them to pass

orders regarding necessary corrections in the academic record within a stipulated time. The petitioner has also been called upon by the FHD Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad for undergoing internship training in Architectural Design from 04.07.2016 to 30.11.2016 and on account of the above said facts, he could not join.

8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court directs the respondents 1 and 2 to take note of the letter of the third respondent dated 29.12.2015 and the representation submitted by the father of the petitioner dated 16.08.2016 and also the order dated 26.05.2016 made in W.P.No.18448 of 2016 (cited supra) and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner.

9. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jvm To

1. The Registrar Anna University, Chennai 600 025.

2 The Controller of Examination Anna University, Chennai 600 025.

3. The Principal Marg Institute of Design and Architecture Swarnabhoomi Velur Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District 603 302.

1 cc to M/s.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, Advocate, sr.47994 1 cc to Mr.V.VAsanthakumar, Advocate, sr.48148 W.P.No.29493 of 2016 and WMP.No.25530 of 2016 ug co kra 24.08.2016