SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

The Appellant further submits that he reserves his right to file additional grounds, if any when required. (j) In any event, the order of the Learned Judge is unsustainable neither in law nor on facts and deserves to be set aside. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed in W.P.No. 4504 of 2023 dated 21.02.2023 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and allow this appeal and issue direction to the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose the representation dated 12.12.2022 of the Appellant and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. Dated at Chennai on this the day of April, 2023. Counse for Appellant MEMO OF VALUATION Value of the Writ Petition Incapable Court Fee Paid Value of the Writ Appeal Court Fee Pa_id Dated at Chennai on this the 3 2.) DISTRICT CHENNAI HIGH COURT MADRAS W.A.No. 2023 against W.P.No.4504 of 2023 (order dated 21.02.2023) M/S. R.BALAGURUSWAMY E. NO. MS 1981/1999 S. ELAIYARAJA EN.NO.1891/2011 .1 R.SRITHAR (MS 2878/2014) P.RAJAMANI (MS.4470/2022) COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT Cell No.9092076352

by ·

52
MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF WRIT APPEAL
(UNDER CLAUSE 15 OF LETTERS PATENT)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Appellate Jurisdiction)
W.A.No.
against
W.P.No.4504 of 2023
(order dated 21.02.2023)
Dr. S. Murugesan,
Assistant Professor,
Department of Tamil Ponneri – 601204 etitioner
// Loganatha Narayanasamy Government College,
1. The. Registrar,
University of Madras,
Chepauk,
Chennai — 600 005
2. The Controller of Examination, University of Madras,
Chepauk,
Chennai — 600 005
3. R. Dhandapani,
S/ o. V. C. Raj amanikkam,
No.63/69, Kamala Nagar 2nd Street,
Thiruvottiyur, Chennai — 600 019 . . Respondents
The address for service of all notices and process on the Appellant is that of his counsel M/S. R.BALAGURUSWAMY
S.ELAIYARAJA, R.SRITHAR and P.RAJAMANI, Advocates at No. 8/ 17 IV Floor, Sungurama Chetty Street, Parrys, Chennai — 600
001.

..2..
The address for service of all notices and processes on that of the Respondents is that of the same as stated above.
1. The Appellant/ Petitioner prefers this Memorandum of
Grounds Uf Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Hon’blc Court dated 21.02.2023 in W.P.N0.4504 of 2023 on the file of this
Hon’ble Court for the following among other:-
GROUNDS
(a) The order of dismissing the Writ Petition by the Learned Single Judge is not correct and contrary to law and the Learned Single Judge ought to have considered to take into account the law and facts of the case.
(b) The Learned Judge failed to consider the Appellant’s case that is cntircly different from the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as well as this Hon’ble Court Bench order in of 2018 dated 26.04.2018 and W.P.No.6734 of 2007 because the above judgments not applicable to this case.
(c) It is submitted that the Learned Single Judge ought to have gone through the contents of the Writ Petition that there is no service matter involved in this Writ Petition and the Appellant is not at all third party to the illegality committed by the 3rd Respondent that the Appellant is the Supervisor in the Ph.D. programme “Thiruvasaga Pathik Kotpadu” and the Appellant is very well aware that the 3rd Respondent having no prescribed qualifications for availing the Ph.D. award from the I st and 2 nd Respondents.

..3..
(d) It is submitted that the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the observations made in case SHRC No. 1941* of 2019 before Statc Human Rights Commission, Tarnil Nadu at Chennai.
(e) It is submitted that the Learned Single Judge failedi•to note down that the 1 st and 2nd Respondents in due of their duty failed to follow the procedures and not even verified the records of the 3rd
Respondent before awarding Ph.D. in his favour that the 3 rd Respondent having no such prescribed qualifications to avail Ph.D. doctorate award.
(f) It is submitted that the Learned Single Judge ought to. have considered that the prayer in the Writ Petition W.P.No.4504 of “2023 is very limited that to consider and dispose the representation dated
12.12.2022 to the I SL and 2 nd Respondents and there is no immunity to the 3 rd Respondent from that process and the Learned Single Judge ordered accordingly, the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents open• to conduct enquiry regarding the award the Ph.D. programme to the:3 rd Respondent.
(g) It Tis Submitted that the judgments and rulings quoted by the Learned Single Judge not applicable to this case that, the Appellant is directly involved as a Supervisor to the Ph.D. programme awarded to the 3 rd Respondent and very well known about the qualifications of .the 3 rd Respondent that he is not fit for that award.
(h) ft is submitted that the Learned Single Judge failed:- to appreciate that, there is no rival claim between the Appellant and the
3 rd Respondent and’ the Appellant filed the Writ Petition only for the

purpose of punishing the culprit and to restrict the bad precedence in awarding Ph.D. programme by the 1 st and 2nd Respondents for the interest of the other students.
(i) The Appellant further submits that he reserves his right to file additional grounds, if any when required.
(j) In any event, the order of the Learned Judge is unsustainable neither in law nor on facts and deserves to be set aside.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed in W.P.No. 4504 of 2023 dated
21.02.2023 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and allow this appeal and issue direction to the Respondents 1 and 2 to
consider and dispose the representation dated 12.12.2022 of the
Appellant and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the day of April, 2023.

Counse for Appellant
MEMO OF VALUATION
Value of the Writ Petition Incapable
Court Fee Paid
Value of the Writ Appeal
Court Fee Pa_id
Dated at Chennai on this the 3

2.)

DISTRICT CHENNAI
HIGH COURT MADRAS
W.A.No. 2023
against
W.P.No.4504 of 2023
(order dated 21.02.2023)

M/S. R.BALAGURUSWAMY
E. NO. MS 1981/1999
S. ELAIYARAJA
EN.NO.1891/2011
.1 R.SRITHAR (MS 2878/2014)
P.RAJAMANI (MS.4470/2022)
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Cell No.9092076352

You may also like...