Ranjithkumar, S/O.Arockiam, v. The Director Of Technical

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.5464 of 2019 Ranjithkumar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Director of Technical Education(FAC) Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai-25.

2.The Principal, Sri Raaja Raajan College of Engineering and Technology, Amaravathipudur, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to re admit the petitioner to continue his third year Computer Science Engineering Course on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan For R1 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.M.E.Ilango

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The petitioner joined B.E Computer Science Course in the second respondent College in the year 2016-2017. When he was in the third year, it appears that the petitioner got involved in an unpleasant incident. He had also taken transfer certificate in Nov2018. Seeking readmission in the very same course in the very same College, this Writ Petitioner came to be filed.

3. This Court issued notice to the second respondent/Management and the College Management is represented through its counsel. The learned counsel appearing for the Management states that the petitioner wanted to leave the College campus on 30.10.2018. The College Watchman had prevented the petitioner from leaving the campus. The petitioner not heeding to the words of the Security staff had jumped over the compound wall and left. He is said to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

have later returned to the College campus and attacked the Watchman with a beer bottle. The Watchman is said to have suffered head injury. In this regard, an enquiry was conducted by the Disciplinary Committee. In order to avoid any adverse consequence to the writ petitioner, the second respondent advised the petitioner to take the transfer certificate. The petitioner also took the transfer certificate. Four months later, this Writ Petition has been filed.

4. I carefully went through the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. The petitioner has given an explanation for the scuffle said to have been taken place between the petitioner and the Watchman. But the fact remains that the petitioner had attacked the Watchman and caused him injury. When the petitioner had taken the transfer certificate, it is not open to him to seek readmission in the very same College. If the petitioner had not taken any transfer certificate, it would be a different matter. It is also seen that there is a time gap of four months between the date of issuance of the transfer certificate and filing of this writ petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the College informs the Court that except the language paper, the petitioner has failed all the other subjects. So far five semesters have got concluded. Out of thirty papers, the petitioner has failed in twenty eight papers.

6. Taking note of all these aspects, I am of the view that the direction sought for cannot be granted. However, the second respondent is directed to issue conduct certificate to the petitioner without any negative remarks. The second respondent shall also return all the original certificates, if they have not already been handed over.

7. With these directions, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Director of Technical Education(FAC) Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai-25.

+1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No.55307 +1 CC to M/s.M.E.ILANGO, Advocate SR-55520 W.P.(MD)No.5464 of 2019 19.03.2019 rmk SP/PK/04.04.2019 : 2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/