Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to entertain the application of the petitioner, sent on 20.6.2009, and to forward it to the second respondent and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to take suitable steps for calling the petitioner's son for counseling for the M.B.B.S. course in the second respondent Institute.
4. It has been stated that the petitioner's son, R.Arun Karthik, had written the Higher Secondary examinations, in the month of March, 2009. He had passed the said examinations and had secured 1122 marks out of 1200 marks. The marks awarded to the candidate are as follows:
Tamil 175 English 170 Physics 193 Chemistry 193 Biology 193 Mathematics 198 The candidate had secured more than the cut off marks and as he belongs to Hindu Kammalar community, which is a Backward Class Community, he would have had good chances of being admitted in the M.B.B.S. Course, in the second respondent Institute.
5. It has been further stated that the petitioner had gone to the second respondent Institute, on 15.6.2009, along with his son, R.Arun Karthik, and had requested the first respondent to give him an application form to apply for a medical seat in the second respondent Institute. After obtaining the application form the petitioner had approached the first respondent, on 16.6.2009, asking him to accept the application form. However, the first respondent had refused to receive the same stating that there was a litigation pending before this Court, with regard to his status as an employee of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The petitioner had further stated that he has been paying the necessary contributions and he is continuing in the rolls of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. As such the first respondent ought to have accepted the application form of the petitioner's son, R.Arun Karthik and he should have forwarded the same to the second respondent Institute for admission to the M.B.B.S. course conducted by the said Institute. Thereafter, the application had been sent by courier, on 20.6.2009. Therefore, there has been some delay in the submission of the application. The delay had been caused only due to the vindictive attitude of the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Mr.Jayesh Dolia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the application, said to have been sent by the petitioner, had not been received, till 22.6.2009. However, since the last date for receipt of the application by the second respondent is already over, the application cannot be forwarded to the second respondent.
7. Ms.Kala Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that no application can be received beyond the cut-off date prescribed for receipt of such applications. Since the application, said to have been sent by the petitioner to the first respondent, had not been forwarded to the second respondent, till date, there is no possibility of considering the said application.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner. It is clear that the application of the petitioner's son, for the M.B.B.S course conducted by the second respondent Institute, had not been submitted, within the time prescribed, for acceptance of such applications. The reasons for the refusal by the first respondent, to forward the application to the second respondent, cannot be gone into, at this stage, due to the fact that the issue regarding the status of the petitioner, as an employee of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has been raised as an issue in the litigation pending before this Court.
9. In such circumstances, the second respondent cannot be directed to receive and process the application beyond the cut-off date prescribed for the receipt of such applications. Since the second respondent had not received the application, till date, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P is closed.
csh To
1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Valudareddy, Villupuram.
2.The Institute of Road Transport, Taramani, Chennai 600 113, Rep. by its Director having his office at Taramani, Chennai.
3.The Director of Medical Education of Tamil Nadu, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 010