SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Mad) 1025

MISHRA, BAKTHAVATSALAM
Minor K. Senthilkumar, Represented by his father & natural guardian Dr. T. Kamalsekaran – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Education Department, Madras – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Advocate for M/S. V. Ramajagadeesan, P. Rathina Asokan, R. Muthukumaraswamy, K. Sundareswaran, R Palaniappan, P.V. Bakthavatchalam, R. Mohanamurali, V. Shanmuganathan, V. Jeevagiridaran, M. Venkataraman, V. Chandrakantham, P. Karunakaran, P.M. Sundaram, M.S. Soundararajan, B. Chandran, Peppin Fernando, S. William, P. Rathinadurai, R. Elango, D.I.J. Rajkumar, M. Sriram, Kurian & Associate;, A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, T. Murugamanickam, P. Sampath, V.S. Subramaniam, T. Thiageswaran. K.V. Karthikeyan, M. Shakir Ali, N. Istaq Ahmed, M. Peer Mohamed, M. Venkatachalapathi, S.M. Loganathan, T.G. Balachander, S. Jaga-dcesan, N. Balasubramanian, D. Sivakumar, R. Vaigai, S. Vaidyanathan, N. Kanakasabai, G Vasudevan, P. Sivaselvam, G. Desappan, G. Bharadwaj, K.N. Pandian, S. Deraisamy, T. Kalaichezian, P.T. Thirumoorthy, K.M. Venu-gopal, P. Sadasivam, P. Balakrishnan, G. Muni-ratnam, A.S. Vijayarighavan, A.L. Gandhimathi, V. Sudhakar, Suchitra Madhavan, V.S. Kanthimathi, Sarala Chidambaram, Arvind P. Datar, R. Venkatavaradan, S. Asokkumar, A. Sasidharan. P. Radhakrishnan, A. Chandrasekaran, N. Kanakasabai, S.M. Amjad Nainar, Zaffarullabkan, R. Kannan, K.V. Subramanian, P. Suhadev, P.H. Pandian, Ravikumar, P.B. Ramanujam. W.C. Sridhar. T. Sivagnanasumdaram, R.G. Rajan. S. Purushothama Das, M.B. Gopalan, N. Vijayaraghavan, M.B. Raghavan, T. Vadivelu, C Ravichandran, Monica Sankhjani, P. Pandi. V. Ramajagadeesan, A Gopal, C. Kanakaraj, K. Rajasekaran, K. Pandi, N.G. Bhuvanaswami, S, Vadivelu, P. Chandrasckaran, P.S. Siva subramaniam. Santha Thiruvengadam, S.L. Kalavathy, Y.K. Rajagopal, N. Thiagarajan, R. Parthiban, R. Thiagarajan, S.C. Ragburam, S.T. Balamurugan, N. Paul Vasanthakumar, K. Ravichandrababu, T.S. Sivagnaaam, M. Kamalanatban, S.L.N. Henry, S. Selvarathinam. S D. Santhanakrishnan, E.S. Govindan, R. Sudhikar, O.V. Balaswami, B.R. Ramesh Babu, E. Padmana bhan, N. Damodaran, R. Govindaraj, T.R Rajagopalan, T.R. Rajaraman, V. Jairam, Pichai Kani, M. Jeeva Bharathi, G. Anbumani, C.R. Prakasb, S. James, R. Malaicbamy, P. Chidambara Subramaniam, S. Manikumar, A. Lobamuthra, B. Maheswari. T.P. Kathiravan, P. Anandakrishnan Nair, K.N. Thampi, P. Sivakumar, V.P. Venkataraman, R. Alagarswamy, K. Jayachandran, G. Thanga Pandian, R. Vijayaraghavan, trwin Aarton, Dharma Sanjeevi, R. Rajan, T. Srinivasaragbavan, A. Krishnamoorthy, T.N. Deepagandhi, M. Ravi, V. Manoharan. K. Balasubramanian, A.A. Lawrence, S. Chandra sekaran, A. Ramalingam, S. Silambanan, P. Venkatachalapathy, S. Gnantgurubaran, Aiyar A Dolia R.N. Amarnath, K.J. Nithyaaandam, B. Balasundaram, T.N. Vallinayagam, A.S. Mani, R.S, Anandan, S. Ravi, Sudha Ravi, S, Rajeswaran , T.L. Suresh, T. Martin, M. Joseph Thathetus Jerome, Zaffarullah Kbaot, R S. Venkatachari, V. Ragbavachari, V. Sumalhi, A. Raroalingam, T. Thiagarajan, C.V. Karthikeyan, Annapoorna Sadasivam, A. Nair Abmaed, The Advocate General Sri K. Alagiriswamy for the Add), Goternment pleader (Writs), Advocates.

Judgment :-

MISHRA, J.

1. Bakthavatsalara, J., has chosen to record his disagreement and had given roc an opportunity to read his judgment. I have not been able to persuade myself to accept any other judgment than the one I propose to deliver as I find we have differed not only in the matter of Perception of law, but also on ts application to the facts of this case.

2. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 13095 and 13139 of 1990, who are candidates seeking admission to B L. Degree Course of Study and petitioners in other writ petitions, who are candidates seeking admission to M.B.B.S. Course of Study 1990 91, have moved this Court seeking a declaration that the Government Order made in G.O. Ms. No. 638, Education (JI) Department dated 10.5-1990, is unconstitutional, illegal and void and such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.

2(a). The impugned G.O., viz., GO. Ms. No. 638, Education (JI) Department, dated 10th May, 1990 states:

“ ORDER — With a view to give encouragement to the first applicant of families having no graduates seeking admission to the Degree courses in the Professional courses, as announced in the floor of the House of the Legislative Assembly on 10-4-19




























































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top