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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms Justice P.T. ASHA
D.Sathya – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.(MD).No. 22083 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 26.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

W.P.(MD).No. 22083 of 2025

D.Sathya ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Tamil University, Tanjore, represented by its Registrar,

Tamil University, Thanjavur.

3.The Vice Chancellor, Tamil University,

Thanjavur.

4.The Controller of Examination, Tamil University,

Thanjavur.

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2026 02:55:49 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P.(MD).No. 22083 of 2025

5.The University Grants Commission, The Rep. By its Secretary, Behadur Shah Zafar Marg,

New Delhi – 110 002. ...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to

publish result for the examination held in the month of July 2024.

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Sheenivasan For Respondents : Mr. T.Amjak Khan

Government Advocate (R1)

Mr. M.K.Sachin Rahul For M/s. C.Arul Vadivel Associates

(R2 & R4)

Mr. V.Maharajan Standing Counsel (R5)

No Appearance (R6)

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2026 02:55:49 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.(MD).No. 22083 of 2025

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To direct the respondents 2 to 4 to publish result for the examination held in the month of July 2024.”

2. The petitioner joined in the course of B.Sc., Botany in the

second respondent University in the year 2018. After completion of first year successfully, due to some family dispute, the petitioner was not able to continue her studies. Hence, the petitioner requested the second respondent to permit her to attend the second and third year examination and after obtaining necessary permission, the petitioner had written the examination in the year 2024. Even after completion of examination, the respondent University has not published the result. A representation given in this regard did not evoke any response. Hence,

the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that

without obtaining recognition relating to B.Sc.Botany programme

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2026 02:55:49 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.(MD).No. 22083 of 2025 through distance education, the students have been enrolled and permitted to appear for examination. Even according to the fifth respondent, a communication had been sent on 01.07.2016 granting recognition to the respondent University for conducting distance

education only for 73 subjects.

4. It is the contention of the second respondent University that

they requested the fifth respondent to grant recognition to 85 subjects. However, the fifth respondent had granted recognition only for 73 subjects and 12 subjects were missing in the approval list. A letter was sent to the fifth respondent requesting recognition for the subjects and

there has been no response to the same.

5.The stand taken by the respondent University that there has

been no response from the fifth respondent, therefore, they cannot be held responsible, is absolutely erroneous. Even in the year 2016, they were very much aware about the fact that the request for recognition for B.Sc.Botany correspondence was not granted, despite which, they have admitted the petitioner and other candidates for that course in the year

4/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2026 02:55:49 pm )

##PAGE5##

W.P.(MD).No. 22083 of 2025

2018.

6. The fifth respondent has in its counter submitted that in the

case of technical/potential program through distance mode, approval of the concerned appex regulatory body was required and in the instant case, it is the all India council for technical education which has to accord such approval. Further, they reiterated the contention that the university cannot open a study centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State as per the judgment in Prof.Y

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 Back to top