Suresh M v. The Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P.(MD).No.16484 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD).No.13782 of 2023 M.Suresh ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director, Director of Legal Studies, No.198, Purasawalkam High Road, Pava Puri Colony, Lumbini Square, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai-600 010.

2.The Principal, Government Law College, Theni-625 534. ...Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned re-do list in third column in serial No.3 dated 16.05.2023 passed by the second respondent for IV semester in the academic year 2022-2023 as illegal and quash the same and consequently, directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner continuous fourth semester.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manokaran For Respondents :Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam Government Advocate

O R D E R

Challenging the impugned re-do list issued by the second respondent on 16.05.2023, directing the petitioner to re-do the fourth semester and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to permit the petitioner to continue the fourth semester, this Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is studying II year B.A., LLB., course at Government Law College, Theni and he is having required attendance for writing examination. However, the second respondent vide impugned order dated 16.05.2023, directed the petitioner to re-do the fourth semester. He has relied upon a common order of this Court passed in W.P.Nos.11614 of 2009 and 7939 of 2010 dated 05.07.2010 and in that case, the request of the petitioner was directed to be considered for writing examination.

2/5

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has attended the class only for three days in the fourth semester and he is not having the required attendance. In the previous year also, he did not attend the class regularly. Therefore, he was directed to re-do the course.

4. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not having required attendance for writing examination and he has attended the class only for three days in the fourth semester. Therefore, he was directed to re-do the course and there is no error on the part of the second respondent in issuing the impugned re-do list. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned re-do list issued by the second respondent. 3/5

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 14.07.2023 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ssb To 1.The Director, Director of Legal Studies, No.198, Purasawalkam High Road, Pava Puri Colony, Lumbini Square, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai-600 010.

2.The Principal, Government Law College, Theni-625 534.

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ssb W.P.(MD).No.16484 of 2023 14.07.2023 5/5