Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
V.Sadhana – Appellant
Versus
The Vice Chancellor - Respondent
W.P.Nos.22453, 20810, 20811, 20815, 20820, 20823, 20827, 20832, 20837, 20843, 20943, 20947, 20952, 20964, 22460, 22462, 22465, 22467, 22469, 22470, 22471, 22473, 22475, 22476, 22477, 22478, 22479, 22496, 22491, 22481, 22484, 22485, 22486, 22488, 22489, 22493 & 22480 of 2023 and WMP.Nos.20186, 20187, 20189, 20190, 20193, 20194, 20197, 20200, 20202, 20203, 20206, 20208, 20210, 20211, 20216, 20217, 20313, 20314, 20319, 20321, 20329, 20332, 20342, 20343, 21852, 21856, 21863, 21864, 21866, 21868, 21872, 21873, 21875, 21876, 21877, 21878, 21880, 21882, 21883, 21884, 21885, 21886, 21889, 21890, 21892, 21893, 21894, 21895, 21896, 21897, 21898, 21899, 21900, 21901, 21902, 21903, 21904, 21905, 21908, 21910, 21911, 21912, 21913, 21914, 21917, 21918, 21920, 21921, 21922, 21925, 21926, 21927, 21928, 21930, 21932, 20184 & 20185 of 2023
Decided on : 30-10-2024
ORDER :
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raying to issue a Writ of Certioarified Mandamus calling for the records on the files of the 4th respondent bearing Proceedings No.3812/Edn/Rustiction/FC&RI/2023 dated 23.06.2023, and to quash the same, and consequently, direct respondents 2 to 4 to issue the Hall Ticket to the petitioner, thereby allowing the petitioner to sit for the second semester examinations due to be conducted in December 2023 or subsequently, as stipulated by the University, and to consequently al-low the petitioner to continue the B.F.Sc. Course (2022-2026) without any interruption.
This is a batch of 37 Writ Petitions. The petitioners are pursuing the Bachelor of Fisheries Science (B.F.Sc) course in the Tamil Nadu Dr.J.Jayalalitha Fisheries University/R1 to R3, being Vice Chancellor, Registrar and Controller of Examinations of the Tamil Nadu Dr.J.Jayalalitha Fisheries University (in common referred to hereunder as ‘University’). They belong to different academic years as tabulated below:
2020 – 2021 Batch:
| Sl.No. | Name | Writ Petition No |
| 1. | Gajendran S | WP 20820/2023 |
| 2. | Nandhana G.S | WP 20811/2023 |
2021 – 2022 Batch :
| Sl.No. | Name | Writ Petition No |
| 1. | PriyaShruthi.S | WP 20823/2023 |
| 2. | Thiranap.D | WP 20832/2023 |
| 3. | Rajeswari C | WP 20810/2023 |
| 4. | SahayaRashmi.D | WP 20837/2023 |
| 5. | Sarabes N.J | WP 20964/2023 |
| 6. | Harini.S | WP 20843/2023 |
| 7. | Sivabala.S | WP 20827/2023 |
| 8. | Gayathri R.M. | WP 22462/2023 |
| 9. | MariyaTriffi.P | WP 20952/2023 |
| 10. | Atchaya V | WP 20815/2023 |
| 11. | Moobika.M | WP 20947/2023 |
| 12. | HepzibahBlesslene.R | WP 22481/2023 |
| 13. | Sujitharasri.S | WP 20943/2023 |
2022 – 2023 Batch :
| Sl.No. | Name | Writ Petition No |
| 1. | Sadhana.V | WP 22453/2023 |
| 2. | Anuja.R.P | WP 22469/2023 |
| 3. | SaroHaeny A | WP 22473/2023 |
| 4. | Sharon Gold.D | WP 22484/2023 |
| 5. | Karthiga.C | WP 22460/2023 |
| 6. | Ajay.M.J | WP 22465/2023 |
| 7. | ThasnevisAster.A | WP 22471/2023 |
| 8. | Shanmugasundaram.S | WP 22475/2023 |
| 9. | Santhiya.S.R.P. | WP 22477/2023 |
| 10. | RajaSaravanakumar.J | WP 22479/2023 |
| 11. | MariyaDharshiga.G | WP 22467/2023 |
| 12. | Sunsika.K | WP 22470/2023 |
| 13. | Sachin D S | WP 22476/2023 |
| 14. | Francis Fabio B | WP 22485/2023 |
| 15. | PriyaDharshini S | WP 22489/2023 |
| 16. | BejoeParwin.R | WP 22491/2023 |
| 17. | Abarna.M | WP 22478/2023 |
| 18. | Infant.P | WP 22480/2023 |
| 19. | Arutsudar.P | WP 22486/2023 |
| 20. | MithunMirsa A V | WP 22488/2023 |
| 21. | Parthiba S | WP 22493/2023 |
| 22. | Dharanitharan.D | WP 22496/2023 |
2. The petitioners have challenged proceedings of R4 to R6, being Deans of Fisheries College and Research Institute, Thoothukudi/R4, Dr.MGR Fisheries College and Research Institute, Thalainayeru/R5 and Dr.MGR Fisheries College and Research Institute, Ponneri/R6 (in common referred to as ‘college’).
3. The impugned proceedings allege that, on verification of the documents submitted by the petitioners for application to the course, two discrepancies were found. The first was that the marks secured by the petitioners in the entrance examination was lower than the cut-off fixed by the University and therefore, the admission secured by the petitioners was itself incorrect. The second related to the allegation that the writ petitioners did not attend the counselling or pay the counselling fees.
4. Based on the aforesaid discrepancies, the petitioners have been rusticated invoking clause 4.2(a) of Chapter IV of the Students Conduct, Control and Discipline Rules of the University. The petitioners have been extended an opportunity of appeal against the impugned order, and of producing supporting documents, i) being proof of eligibility of cut-off mark for admission to B.F.Sc. course, ii) proof of having attended on line counselling, iii) proof for having paid the counselling fee iv) proof for downloading admission card from the
The court ruled that fraudulent admissions invalidate eligibility, despite procedural errors by the University, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to cut-off criteria.
The court affirmed the principle that students should not be penalized for institutional errors in admissions when they are qualified, allowing them to continue their studies.
The court affirmed that admissions obtained through fraud are invalid, emphasizing that principles of natural justice do not apply in such cases.
The court upheld the cancellation of LLB admission due to non-compliance with eligibility criteria, holding the Law College accountable for the illegal admission and awarding compensation.
Petitioners cannot claim academic progression without meeting regulatory requirements and clearing necessary subjects. Contempt of court claim dismissed due to compliance by respondents.
Eligibility criteria for academic admissions cannot be altered after the admission process has commenced, ensuring fairness in selection.
The University acted unlawfully by retroactively applying amended examination regulations, resulting in the wrongful failure of a student who met the passing criteria under the original rules.
Point of Law - Needless to say that once the petitioner successfully completes the said procedure of recruitment, the university will also take up and conclude the further procedure on urgent basis, ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
