The Petitioner, represented by his Power of Attorney, has projected the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records relating to the issue of impugned 1st Respondent/Bharathiyar University Rank List during April' 2004 for the candidates for whom B.E. Aeronautical Engineering Examinations were held during April' 2004 and to quash the same. Further, the Petitioner has sought for passing of an order in directing the 1st Respondent to prepare a fresh rank list and consider the case of the Petitioner for inclusion in the rank list at appropriate place in accordance with the Regulations of the 1st Respondent.

The Writ Factual Matrix:

(i) The Petitioner completed B.E. Degree in First Class with Distinction scoring 80.21% marks in Aeronautical Engineering during the year 2004 from the Park College, which was under the control of the 1st Respondent. After graduation, on employment, he went to Bangalore. Now, he is employed in Canada and residing there.

(ii) With an intention to proceed for his higher studies in USA, he approached the Universities therein for scholarship during the study, and came to know that the scholarship would be available to University Rank Holders. Thereafter, he approached the University for a copy of the rank list prepared by the 1st Respondent, through his friend and came to know that he was not in the University rankings. He was shocked to hear the same.

(iii) The Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent were classmates. He knew that the 2nd Respondent had not passed all the 8 semester examinations in first attempt and therefore, he expected that he would be given third ranking in the University Rank List. But the 1st Respondent conferred the third rank to the 2nd Respondent ignoring him.

(iv) The 2nd Respondent had not passed the Mathematics Examination [Subject Code 23B] held during the 2nd semester at first attempt and therefore, she was not at all eligible to be considered for any University ranking as per the Regulations of the 1st Respondent. As such, the conferment of the third University Rank on the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent is illegal and affects his vested rights under the Regulations.

(v) To ascertain or what basis the 1st Respondent/University had prepared the Rank List, the Petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent had not furnished the information sought under the guise of secrecy. The 1st Respondent furnished the information on 21.01.2011 stating that a candidate having arrears in the first/second semester Examinations is not eligible for ranking. Then the Petitioner sought information about the basis of Rank certificate to the 2nd Respondent when she had failed in Subject Code 23B. The reply of the 1st Respondent, through its letter dated 21.03.2011, would show that it changed its mind and substantiated the ranking of 2nd Respondent by misinterpreting the relevant regulation and regretted for the earlier information. The acts of the 1st Respondent would reveal that the ranking was awarded to the 2nd Respondent with a mala fide intention to cause undue favour to the 2nd Respondent at the cost of the Petitioner.

(vi) As the Petitioner is qualified to get the third University Rank, he ought to have been placed at third position in the University ranking. However, the 1st Respondent abused its powers in favour of the 2nd Respondent and placed her at the third rank illegally in blatant violation of the relevant Regulations.

(vii) The Petitioner's RTI application to the 1st Respondent asking for copy of mark sheet of the 2nd Respondent was not considered properly and that the 1st Respondent had not furnished the information under the guise of secrecy. Therefore, he is unable to produce the copy of the mark sheet of the 2nd Respondent showing arrears to this Court.

(viii) The denial of University third rank by the 1st Respondent had caused grave injury to the Petitioner, by not only affecting h