{"id":216479,"date":"2002-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002"},"modified":"2014-12-01T01:46:08","modified_gmt":"2014-11-30T20:16:08","slug":"j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar &#8230; on 29 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar &#8230; on 29 August, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 29\/08\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN\n\nWRIT PETITION NO. 20424 of 2002\nAND\nWMP.No. 28264  OF 2002\n\n\nJ.Maneksha Babu                                        ..Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University\n   rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Tirunelveli\n\n2. The Controller of Examinations\n   Manonmaniam Sundaranar University\n   Tirunelveli\n\n3. Noorul Islam College of Engineering,\n   Kumaracoil, Thuckalay\n   Kanyakumari District rep. by its\n   Chairman.                                    ..Respondents\n\n\n\nFor petitioner::   Mr.A.L.Somayaji Senior Counsel\n                    Mr.Goldwern and Mr.B.Vijaya Kumar\n\nFor respondents:  Mr.Subbiah for RR1 and 2                                     Mr.S.\n                  Parthasarathy for R.3\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India  praying\nfor the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, as stated therein.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The  petitioner  prays  for  the  issue  of  a  writ of certiorarified<br \/>\nmandamus  to  call  for  the  proceedings  of   the   second   respondent   in<br \/>\nNo.MSUgE&amp;R\/2001-2002  dated 30.1.2002 and No.MSU\/E&amp;R\/2002 dated 6.5.2002 quash<br \/>\nthe same and consequently permit the petitioner herein to  continue  with  his<br \/>\nM.Sc.,  (Computer  TechonologygP.G.Degree  course) without any interruption in<br \/>\nthe first respondent University and for other consequential remedies.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  On 13.6.2002, the writ petition was admitted  and  rule  nisi  was<br \/>\nordered.  The  respondents  have  been  served.   The respondents have entered<br \/>\nappearance and filed their counter.  With the consent  of  counsel  on  either<br \/>\nside the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The  petitioner who has acquired BCA Degree (Bachelor of Computer<br \/>\nApplications) applied to the third respondent college for  admission  to  M.Sc<br \/>\nComputer  Technology  course  (Post Graduate Course) for which course of study<br \/>\nthird  respondent  college  has  been  affiliated  to  the  first   respondent<br \/>\nUniversity.   It  is aleged that The order of affiliation does not contain any<br \/>\nprescription with respect to minimum eligibility  criteria  for  admission  to<br \/>\nM.Sc computer  technology  course is concerned.  There is no stipulation as to<br \/>\nthe minimum eligibility for admission to M.Sc.Computer Technology course.  The<br \/>\npetitioner claims       that he had studied all the relevant subjects in B.C.A<br \/>\nand therefore he is  eligible  to  be  admitted  to  M.Sc.computer  Technology<br \/>\ncourse.   The  third  respondent college entertained the application submitted<br \/>\nfor admission to M.S.C., computer Technology course for the year 2001-2002 and<br \/>\nthe petitioner was admitted to the first year course.    The  petitioner  also<br \/>\nappeared  in the first semester examinations for the M.Sc Computer Technology.<br \/>\nThe petitioner also states that he has completed one year and he has to appear<br \/>\nfor the second semester examination for the first  year  computer  technology.<br \/>\nThe  second  respondent by the impugned communication dated 6.5.2002 addressed<br \/>\nthe third respondent college intimating that the petitioner is not eligible to<br \/>\nbe admitted for M.Sc Computer Technology course as he is not possessed of  the<br \/>\neligibility qualification  for  the  admission.    The  petitioner  refers  to<br \/>\nsyllabus for the B.C.A  tries  to  justify  that  he  possess  the  equivalent<br \/>\nqualification   and   that   it  should  be  construed  that  he  possess  the<br \/>\nqualification prescribed for admission to M.Sc.Computer Technology course.  It<br \/>\nis the claim of the petitioner that he  is  eligible  for  admission  to  M.Sc<br \/>\ncomputer technology.    The  petitioner also claims that in Periyar University<br \/>\nthe minimum eligibility for admission  has  been  prescribed  as  Bachelor  of<br \/>\nComputer  Application  as  one  of the qualification and therefore there is no<br \/>\nreason either for the first  respondent  university  to  fix  or  stipulate  a<br \/>\ndifferent eligibility.    The  respondents  are  estopped  from going back and<br \/>\nabruptly interfere with the studies of the  petitioner.    The  petitioner  is<br \/>\nsought to  be  disqualified  on trivial and non est grounds or reasons.  Being<br \/>\naggrieved by the impugned order, the present writ petition has been  filed  to<br \/>\nquash  the  impugned  order  and  for  consequential  directions to enable the<br \/>\npetitioner to continue his M.Sc computer technology  course  under  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent university in the third respondent college.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  On  behalf  of the second respondent a counter has been filed.  It<br \/>\nis contended that as per the statutes, the first respondent University has  to<br \/>\nsue  and  to be sued through the Registrar and not through the Vice Chancellor<br \/>\nand therefore the writ petition as framed against the first respondent is  bad<br \/>\nin law.    It  is alleged that it is only the third respondent who has brought<br \/>\nout the present writ petition in the  name  of  the  petitioner.    The  third<br \/>\nrespondent   was  granted  permissiong  affiliation  to  start  M.Sc  Computer<br \/>\nTechnology Course during academic year 2001-2002 for the  first  time.    Even<br \/>\nwhile  granting  affiliationg  permission  it  has  been  prescribed  that the<br \/>\neligibility for admission to the said M.Sc Computer  Technology  course  is  a<br \/>\npass  in  B.Sc  computer  technology or B.Sc Information Technology with three<br \/>\nyears course with the subjects of (1) Principles of Programming Languages, (2)<br \/>\nObject oriented Programming through C++, (e)  Advanced  Data  Base  Management<br \/>\nSystem,  (4)  Software  Engineering,  (5)  C++ programming Laboratory, and (6)<br \/>\nOracle Laboratory.  When the eligibility qualification has been prescribed, no<br \/>\nquestion of  considering  any  equivalent  qualification  would  arise.    The<br \/>\nPrincipals  of  all  the  affiliated  colleges  including the third respondent<br \/>\ncollege are members of the Senate of the first respondent University  and  are<br \/>\nrepresented in Standing committee on academic affairs and Syndicate.  Contrary<br \/>\nto  the  regulations  the  third respondent had admitted the petitioner to the<br \/>\nM.Sc Computer Technology course who has no eligibility for  admission  as  per<br \/>\nthe regulations of the University.  Such admission has been given deliberately<br \/>\nby  the  third  respondent  college  to  earn  money by way of fees apparently<br \/>\nknowing well  that  there  would  not  be  enough  candidates  possessing  the<br \/>\nprescribed qualification to take the course.  In any event the writ petitioner<br \/>\nhas also  not  secured  50%  marks  prescribed.   The third respondent college<br \/>\nhaving illegally admitted the petitioner apparently  in  order  to  allow  the<br \/>\npetitioner  to  complete  the  first  semester  and  to register for the first<br \/>\nsemester examinations delayed sending of application  of  the  petitioner  for<br \/>\nconsideration  as  to his eligibility for admission till the end of September,<br \/>\n2001 though he has been admitted during July 2001.  On  27.9.2001,  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent  purported  to forward the application of the petitioner along with<br \/>\nfew others for deciding the eligibility of the petitioner.  While scrutinising<br \/>\nthe application of the petitioner it was found that he  is  not  eligible  for<br \/>\nadmission   to  M.Sc  Computer  Technology  Course  as  per  the  University&#8217;s<br \/>\nRegulations and the same was communicated to  the  third  respondent  college,<br \/>\nbesides the results of the first semester examination was withheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   The  third  respondent  collage  by  its  letter  dated  5.2.2002<br \/>\naddressed the University requesting for relaxation of  the  admission  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner as a special case which was not acceptable to the University and it<br \/>\nwas negatived.    Hall  ticket  has  been issued as a matter of routine on the<br \/>\nbasis of list of candidates furnished by the third respondent college.    Mere<br \/>\nissuance  of  hall  ticket will not mean that the petitioner has been admitted<br \/>\nvalidly.  The moment the ineligibility was brought to the notice of the second<br \/>\nrespondent and the results  of  the  examination  were  withheld.    When  the<br \/>\npetitioner  being  ineligible to be admitted cannot seek the relief of writ of<br \/>\ncertiorari and mandamus as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  The syllabus  structure  for  B.Sc.,  Computer  Science  and  B.SC<br \/>\nComputer Technology  as  well as BCA are not identical.  The syllabus for both<br \/>\ndegree courses are as prescribed by the Tamil Nadu State  Council  for  Higher<br \/>\nStudies and  the  syllabus  are  different  for  the  two  Branches.  In B.Sc.<br \/>\nComputer science, the emphasis is more on mathematics while in B.Sc., computer<br \/>\ntechnology emphasis is on numerical methods and electronics.  It is  incorrect<br \/>\nto  state  that  B.C.A  is  a prescribed qualification for admission to M.S.C.<br \/>\nComputer Technology in Periyar University.  The third respondent was very much<br \/>\naware and deliberately admitted the petitioner who is  ineligible  and  it  is<br \/>\nonly the third respondent who should be made liable for the damage suffered by<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  as  otherwise  it  will  be  difficult  for the University to<br \/>\ndiscipline the Institutions run by the private management.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The third respondent appeared through counsel  and  also  filed  a<br \/>\ncounter.   In  the  counter  after  referring  to  the  grant  of  permissiong<br \/>\naffiliation the third respondent points out that the affiliation order do  not<br \/>\ncontain  any  information  regarding  the  minimum  eligibility  criteria  for<br \/>\nadmission to M.Sc., Computer Technology.  The writ  petitioner  submitted  his<br \/>\napplication  for  admission  and an entrance test was conducted and based upon<br \/>\nthat he was selected and admitted and joined as one of the eleven  candidates.<br \/>\nThe  third  respondent  on 27.9.2001 forwarded the application for issuance of<br \/>\neligibility certificate  and  recognition  of  the  candidates  including  the<br \/>\npetitioner.   The  first  respondent  issued hall ticket to the petitioner and<br \/>\nother students  for  appearance  in  the  first  semester  examination.    The<br \/>\npetitioner has joined the second semester class as well.  The first respondent<br \/>\nissued  a  letter stating that the petitioner is not eligible for admission to<br \/>\nM.Sc., computer technology course since the petitioner  is  a  candidate  with<br \/>\nB.C.A.  Degree  alone.    The  third respondent submitted a representation for<br \/>\nreconsideration  while  adding  that  the  qualification  possessed   by   the<br \/>\npetitioner  is  equivalent  to  the  qualification  prescribed  by  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent university for admission to M.Sc., Computer Technology.  The second<br \/>\nrespondent on 6.5.2002 informed the third respondent that the  petitioner  has<br \/>\nnot secured 50% marks in part III of BCA course and as such he is not eligible<br \/>\nfor  admission  to  M.Sc  computer  technology  and the first year examination<br \/>\nresults was withheld.   A  representation  has  been  submitted  to  the  Vice<br \/>\nChancellor  for  favourable consideration and relaxation and no order has been<br \/>\npassed by the Vice Chancellor.  The second respondent has orally informed that<br \/>\nthere cannot be  a  reconsideration  and  that  the  petitioner  will  not  be<br \/>\npermitted to  sit  for  the  second  semester  examinations.    At the time of<br \/>\ngranting affiliation no eligibility or  minimum  eligibility  marks  has  been<br \/>\nprescribed  by  the  University and therefore the first and second respondents<br \/>\nare estopped from rejecting the application of the petitioner.   The  admision<br \/>\nof  the writ petitioner is a bona fide act on the part of the third respondent<br \/>\ncollege.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  Heard Mr.A.L.Somayajee, learned senior counsel for Mr.Goldwern and<br \/>\nMr.B.Vijayakumar appearing for the  petitioner,  Mr.Subbiah,  learned  counsel<br \/>\nappearing  for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.parthasarathy, learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the third respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  The points that arise for consideration are:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        (i)     Whether the  petitioner  possess  the  prescribed  eligibility<br \/>\nqualification for being admitted to the M.Sc., Computer Technology Course?\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        (ii)    Whether the respondents are estopped by their conduct?<\/p>\n<p>        Both the points could be considered together.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>        10.   Mr.A.L.Somayajee,  learned  senior  counsel  contended  that the<br \/>\nUniversity  has   not   framed   regulations   prescribing   the   eligibility<br \/>\nqualification  for  admission  to  M.Sc., Computer Technology and specifically<br \/>\ncontended that in the absence of  any  regulation,  it  is  not  open  to  the<br \/>\nrespondents 1 and 2 to refuse admission o the petitioner who is eligible to be<br \/>\nadmitted to  M.Sc., Computer Technology course.  Admittedly the petitioner has<br \/>\npassed B.C.A (Bachelor of Computer Application)  alone  and  not  Bachelor  of<br \/>\nComputer Technology.    This  court  called  upon  Mr.Subbiah, learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for respondents 1 and 2 to produce the  regulations  framed  by  the<br \/>\nUniversity with respect  to M.  Sc., Computer Technology course.  After taking<br \/>\nadjournment, the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 produced the  regulations<br \/>\nand scheme  for  examination  for  M.Sc.,  Computer Technology.  A copy of the<br \/>\nAppendix No.C-2 of the first respondent University  Regulation  was  produced.<br \/>\nAs  seen  from  the  Appendix  No.C-2,  which is a part of the Regulations and<br \/>\nscheme of examination, the eligibility qualification prescribed for  admission<br \/>\nto  M.Sc  Computer  Technology  is  a  pass in B.Sc computer TechnologygB.Sc.,<br \/>\nInformation Technology.    The  said  regulation  also  prescribes  that   the<br \/>\ncandidates  for  admission  to the first year for the two year M.Sc., Computer<br \/>\nTechnology shall be required to have a pass in three year  degree  programming<br \/>\nin B.Sc.,  Computer  Technology or B.Sc., Information Technology.  The learned<br \/>\nsen ior counsel also was furnished with a copy of the regulation framed by the<br \/>\nfirst respondent  University.    Therefore  it  is  clear   that   the   first<br \/>\nrespondent-University   has   prescribed  the  eligibility  qualification  for<br \/>\nadmission to M.Sc., Computer Technology  course  and  the  contention  to  the<br \/>\ncontra cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   It  follows automatically that unless the petitioner possess the<br \/>\neligibility qualification he could not be  admitted  to  the  M.Sc.,  Computer<br \/>\nTechnology course.    Concedingly, the petitioner has not acquired a degree in<br \/>\nB.Sc., computer technology or B.Sc., Information Technology.  But he has  only<br \/>\npassed  BCA  (Bachelor  of  Computer  Application) Therefore the petitioner is<br \/>\nineligible to be admitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  It is rather extraordinary on the part of the third respondent to<br \/>\nhave admitted the writ petitioner and has gone to the extent of supporting the<br \/>\nclaim of the petitioner.  The third respondent was  very  much  aware  of  the<br \/>\nminimum  eligibility  qualification  prescribed for admission, yet for reasons<br \/>\nbest known it has chosen to admit the petitioner.  As rightly pointed  out  by<br \/>\nthe  second  respondent  the third respondent had admitted the petitioner with<br \/>\nfull knowledge with a view to make an unlawful gain and the act of  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent has  to  be  reprimanded a or deprecated.  Therefore the contention<br \/>\nadvanced by the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 merits acceptance.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  As regards the plea of  estoppel,  the  third  respondent  having<br \/>\nadmitted  the  petitioner  had sent the application for verification belatedly<br \/>\nand in the meanwhile the first  semester  examination  hall  ticket  has  been<br \/>\nissued  on  the  basis  of  examination  application  and  list  of candidates<br \/>\nforwarded by the third respondent college and immediately  after  verification<br \/>\nas  to  the eligibility of the petitioner for admission, the second respondent<br \/>\nnot only withheld the results for the first  semester  examination,  but  also<br \/>\nintimated  the  third  respondent  well  in time that the third respondent has<br \/>\nadmitted a candidate who is ineligible.  Even thereafter the third  respondent<br \/>\npersisted  and  sought  for relaxation or accommodation while pleading for the<br \/>\nwrit petitioner and the said request has also been rejected immediately.   The<br \/>\nplea  of  estoppel cannot be maintained against the first or second respondent<br \/>\nand such a plea against the third respondent is  unsustainable  as  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent has  colluded  or acted hand in glove with the writ petitioner.  At<br \/>\nany rate the third respondent is not the competent  authority  to  decide  the<br \/>\neligibility  qualification  prescribed  by the first respondent university for<br \/>\nadmission to M.Sc., Computer Technology.  Hence  the  plea  of  estoppel  also<br \/>\nfails.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.    The  learned  senior  counsel  vehemently  contended  that  the<br \/>\npetitioner be permitted to continue on sympathetic grounds.    This  court  is<br \/>\nunable  to  sustain  such  a  persuasive request on sympathetic consideration,<br \/>\nwhich cannot be a ground to allow the petitioner to continue his studies  when<br \/>\nhe is ineligible.   This court shall not be a party to an illegality.  So also<br \/>\nthe respondents 1 and 2.  This court also will not be justified in  permitting<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  to  appear  for  the  next  semester  examination  or issuing<br \/>\ndirections.  The petitioner has  to  blame  himself  or  to  blame  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent and if he has got any grievance he has to proceed against the third<br \/>\nrespondent  for  appropriate relief of damages or compensation as the case may<br \/>\nbe.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.  The question whether the petitioner who  has  not  been  admitted<br \/>\nvalidly  could  be permitted to take up examination has to be answered against<br \/>\nthe petitioner in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in  CBSE<br \/>\nand another  Vs.   P.Sunil kumar and others reported in 1998 (5) SCC 377 where<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court deprecated the practice of allowing  students  provisionally<br \/>\nfor  the  examination  conducted  by  the  Board  or  the  University and then<br \/>\nultimately  lending  a  hand  to  regularize  their  appearance  by  taking  a<br \/>\nsympathetic view.  In this respect the Supreme Court held thus:-<br \/>\n&#8220;Whether  the  High  Court was justified in issuing these impugned directions?<br \/>\nThis question no longer remains res integra.   This  court  in  several  cases<br \/>\ndeprecated  the  practice  of allowing students to appear provisionally in the<br \/>\nexaminations of the Board or the University and then  ultimately  regularising<br \/>\nthe same  by  taking  a  sympathetic  view of the matter.  In the case of A.P.<br \/>\nChristians Medical Educational Society Vs.  Govt of Andhra Pradesh, (1968 2 SC\n<\/p>\n<p>667) this court held that the court will not be justified in issuing direction<br \/>\nto the University to protect  the  interest  of  the  students  who  had  been<br \/>\nadmitted  to  the  medical college in clear transgression of the provisions of<br \/>\nthe University Act and the  regulations  of  the  University.    It  was  also<br \/>\nobserved  that  the  court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey<br \/>\nthe statute to which it owes its existence and the  regulations  made  by  the<br \/>\nUniversity itself  as  that  would  be destructive of the rule of law.  In the<br \/>\ncase of Sate of T.N.  Vs.  St.Joseph Teachers&#8217; Training Institute, this  court<br \/>\nheld  that  the  direction  of  admitting students of unauthorized educational<br \/>\ninstitutions and permitting them to appear at the examination has been  looked<br \/>\non  with  disfavour  and the students of unrecognized institutions who are not<br \/>\nlegally entitled to appear at  the  examination  conducted  by  the  Education<br \/>\nDepartment  of  the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and<br \/>\nthe High Court committed an error in granting permission to such  students  to<br \/>\nappear at  the public examination.  All these cases were again considered by a<br \/>\nthere-Judge bench of this court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.  Vikas<br \/>\nSahebroa Roundale (1992 4 SCC 435) and  it  was  held  that  the  students  of<br \/>\nunrecognized  and  unauthorized  educational  institutions could not have been<br \/>\npermitted by the High Court on a  writ  petition  being  filed  to  appear  in<br \/>\nexamination and  to  be  accommodated  in  recognised institutions.  The court<br \/>\nultimately struck down the direction issued by the High Court.  In yet another<br \/>\ncase, Guru Nank Dev University Vs.   Parminder  Kr.Bansal  (1993  4  SCC  401)<br \/>\nanother  three-judge  Bench  of  this  court interfered with the interim order<br \/>\npassed by the High Court to allow students to undergo internship  course  even<br \/>\nwithout passing the MBBS examination.  The court observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;We  are  afraid  that  this  kin  of  administration of interlocutory<br \/>\nremedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced does no service<br \/>\nto anyone.  From the series of orders that keep coming before us  in  academic<br \/>\nmatters,   we   find   that   loose,  ill-conceived  sympathy  masquerades  as<br \/>\ninterlocutory  justice  exposing  judicial  discretion  to  the  criticism  of<br \/>\ndegenerating into  private  benevolence.    This  is  subversive  of  academic<br \/>\ndiscipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in  academic<br \/>\nlife.   Admissions  cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the<br \/>\ncandidates.  Decisions on matters relevant to be taken  into  account  at  the<br \/>\ninterlocutory   stage  cannot  be  deferred  or  decided  later  when  serious<br \/>\ncomplications might ensue from the interim order itself.  In the present case,<br \/>\nthe High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by  an<br \/>\naccurate assessment  of  even  the  prima  facie  legal position.  Such orders<br \/>\ncannot be allowed  to  stand.    The  courts  should  not  embarrass  academic<br \/>\nauthorities by themselves taking over their functions.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        16.   In  the light of the above discussion, this court holds that the<br \/>\npetitioner is not entitled to any remedy and the writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        17.  Normally on facts this court should have awarded cost against the<br \/>\npetitioner, however, taking a considerate view, this  court  is  not  awarding<br \/>\ncost  as  cost,  if  at  all,  has  to  be  awarded  only  against  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent-College.  Consequently, connected WPMP is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<br \/>\ngkv<br \/>\n29-08-2002<\/p>\n<p>copy to:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  Manonmaniam Sundaranar University<br \/>\nrep.  by its Vice Chancellor, Tirunelveli<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Controller of Examinations<br \/>\nManonmaniam Sundaranar University<br \/>\nTirunelveli<\/p>\n<p>3.  Noorul Islam College of Engineering,<br \/>\nKumaracoil, Thuckalay<br \/>\nKanyakumari District rep.  by its<br \/>\nChairman<\/p>\n<p>Order in<br \/>\nW.P.No:  20424 of 2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar &#8230; on 29 August, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/08\/2002 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 20424 of 2002 AND WMP.No. 28264 OF 2002 J.Maneksha Babu ..Petitioner -Vs- 1. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Tirunelveli 2. The [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-30T20:16:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar &#8230; on 29 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-30T20:16:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3157,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002\",\"name\":\"J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-30T20:16:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar &#8230; on 29 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-30T20:16:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar &#8230; on 29 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-30T20:16:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002"},"wordCount":3157,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002","name":"J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-30T20:16:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-maneksha-babu-vs-manonmaniam-sundaranar-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.Maneksha Babu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar &#8230; on 29 August, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216479","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=216479"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216479\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}