Navanethakrishnan .R v. The Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.09.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR R.Navanethakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs., 1.The Registrar Madurai Kamaraj University, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai 625 021.

2.K.P.National College of Arts & Science, Konnampatty, Batlagundu 624 202 Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to conduct re-valuation for the subjects under the Subject Code SCH8C51, SCH8C 52 and SCH8S51 as per the online application of petitioner dated 17.04.2023 and publish its result in the official web-site of the first respondent herein, within a reasonable time. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai For Respondents : Mr.T.Cibichakraborthy (for R1) 1/4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to conduct re-valuation for the subjects under the Subject Code SCH8C51, SCH8C 52 and SCH8S51 as per the online application of petitioner dated 17.04.2023 and publish its result in the official web-site of the first respondent herein, within a reasonable time.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined B.Sc (Chemistry) regular course in the second respondent college during 2016-2019. He completed his first and second year semesters I, II, III and IV. For the third year examination, the petitioner paid examination fees, but he discontinued the final year course. Thereafter, he rejoined the third year course and after result, he has passed only two subjects out of six subjects. However, he has sought for revaluation for three subjects i.e., Code SCH8C51, SCH8C 52 and SCH8S51 and for which, he paid necessary fees on 17.04.2023 through online. However, the result has not been published. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking direction in this regard.

2/4

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on instructions, would submit that as far as the revaluation is concerned, there is a specific Form-VIII available in the web-site of the university. As per the terms and Rules, such application should be filed within seven days from the date of result. In this case, the result was published on 31.03.2023, whereas the petitioner has submitted application only on 17.04.2023 and even without proper form. Hence, he opposed the present writ petition.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has not disputed that he has applied for revaluation on 17.04.2023. However, he conveniently omitted to plead the date of result in his writ petition.

6. Be that as it may, it is undisputed fact that the revaluation has to be applied within the stipulated time in a specific form. I have perused the application available in the second respondent university, in which, instructions clearly stipulated that the revaluation to be applied on web-site within seven days from the date of publication of the result and even after getting Xerox copy of the papers, such request made within five days. However, the petitioner has not followed such manner.

3/4

N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.

Rmk In such view of the matter, the petitioner cannot seek mandamus directing the respondents to release the result, when the very application itself has not been filed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 04.09.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Rmk 4/4