The State of Tamil Nadu v. B. Jagannath

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.04.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANW.A.No.1453/20071.The State of Tamil Nadu,rep. by its Secretary to Government,Law Department,Secretariat,Chennai-600 009.2.The Special Personal Asst. to Minister(Public Works and Law)Secretariat,Chennai-9.3.The Director of Legal Studies,Law Department,Tamil Nadu Housing Board Building,Nandanam, Chennai-35....AppellantsVs.1.B.Jagannath2.Vivek Chandra3.The Vice Chancellor,Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,No.5, Poompozhil,Greenways Road, Chennai-28.4.The Registrar (i/c)Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,No.5, Poompozhil,Greenways Road, Chennai-28.5.The Director (i/c)School of Excellence in Law,Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,No.5, Poompozhil,Greenways Road,Chennai-28....Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeal filed against the order passed by this Court dated10.10.2007 passed in W.P.No.27080/2007 filed under Article 226 of theconstitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents 1,2 and 3 to issue government order for grant offinancial assistance to the petitioner 1 and 2 for participating inthe pace International criminal Court Moot competition, New York, USAimmediately after the 6th respondent issues proper bonafideCeritificate to both the petitioners recommend the same to R1, R2 andR3.For appellants : Mr.S.Rajasekar, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Education)For Respondents : Mr.S.Badrinath, for respondents 1 and 2 Mr.P.Theogaraj, for 4th respondentJ U D G M E N TARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.This appeal is directed against the order of the learned SingleJudge in W.P.No.27080/2007, directing the authorities concerned toconsider the application, if given by the respondents 1 and 2[petitioners in the Writ Petition], to extend financial assistance,for their participation in ICC Moot Competition held in the month ofOctober 2007 in New York, USA.2.According to the respondents 1 and 2, they were studying inDr.Ambedkar Government Law College for the academic year 2003-04 upto 2005-06 and thereafter, they were shifted to Dr.Ambedkar LawUniversity. On previous occasions, while they were studying inDr.Ambedkar Government Law College, they have participated in ICCMoot Competitions held outside India i.e. at Vienna and Hong Kong andwere given financial assistance by the Government. After they wereshifted to Dr.Ambedkar Law University, they were deprived of the saidbenefits and the privileges enjoyed by the students who studied inGovernment Law College, Chennai and thus they were treateddifferently. Pursuant to the circular issued by the School ofExcellence in Law, inviting participants, the respondents 1 and 2participated in the selection conducted on 18.06.2007. On 13.07.2007,a bonafide certificate, stating that the 1st respondent has studied IVyear BABL Honors Degree and is about to join V year, was issued. But,however, the Director, School of Excellence in Law did not issueproper bonafide certificates to both the students which deprived themfrom getting financial assistance from the Government.3.In the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent,Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, it was submittedthat a circular was issued by the School of Excellence in Law dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.06.2007 inviting willing students for participation in the ICCMoot Competition which was scheduled to be held at New York in themonth of October, 2007. Selection was to be held at 2.00 p.m. on18.06.2007 in School of Excellence in Law. Though the respondents 1and 2 gave their names, they did not participate in the selection andhence, the Director, School of Excellence in Law could not suggestany names for the said Moot Court Competition. As the respondents 1and 2 participated in the said competition on their own volition, notas representatives of School of Excellence in Law, financialassistance by the Government could not be extended to them.4.The learned Single Judge did not agree with the reasons givenby the respondent University considering the fact that those studentshave participated in earlier Moot Court Competition and therefore,presumed that they ought to have come for selection and the reasonsassigned by the authorities do not appear to be proper. Further, thelearned Judge held that the respondents 1 and 2 having applied forparticipation, visa had been granted and as there was response fromthe concerned Consulate General of United States of America, theycannot be deprived of their participation and therefore, passed anorder, directing the students to approach the authorities concernedwith a copy of the application, within a period of three days fromthe date of receipt of a copy of the order and further directed thefirst Respondent [Law Secretary, Tamil Nadu Government] to considerthe case of the respondents 1 and 2 taking cognizance of theirearlier participation in Moot Court Competition for grantingfinancial assistance to them.5.The contention of the appellants is that the sanction offinancial assistance by the Government is strictly by selectionprocess with a selection committee comprising of three experiencedlecturers and the respondents 1 and 2 having not participated in theselection process, the Government cannot extend financial assistanceto those students who on their own accord, without any authority,have participated in the Moot Court Competition.6.On the other hand, the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that theyreceived invitation in e-mail from Pace International Criminal CourtMoot Competition and by obtaining bonafide certificates, they haveparticipated in the Moot Court Competition.7.The learned Government Pleader submitted before this Court thata circular was issued informing the students that selection forparticipation was to be held on 18.06.2007 in School of Excellence inLaw, thus inviting willing students to give their names. Accordingly,respondents 1 and 2 had given their names for participation in theselection. But they have not taken part in selection process andfurther, no students had participated in the selection held on18.06.2007 as well. It is further stated by the learned GovernmentPleader that though they were fully aware of the selection ofparticipants they have not turned up for selection and therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ School of Excellence in Law could not suggest any name for Moot CourtCompetition. It is further said that on their own accord, respondents1 and 2 have participated and therefore, they are not entitled to getany financial assistance from the Government.8.The learned Single Judge has held that since the respondentshave participated in earlier Moot Court Competition, it has to bepresumed that they ought to have attended the selection process. Thesaid finding is without any basis. Probably, the keen interest shownby respondents 1 and 2 in attending Moot Court Competition earlier,has weighed with the Judge to form such opinion that there was apossibility for the students to have attended the selection. Thelearned Addl. Government Pleader Mr.Rajasekar submitted that therespondents 1 and 2 have not attended the selection which was held on18.06.2007 and further, as none of the students attended, no nameswere suggested for the said competition. The learned Single Judge hasfurther observed that he was not inclined to know the exact reasonfor non participation of the students in the selection process. Therelevant observation of the learned Single Judge is as follows :-"17.The decision of the respondent Universitymay not be proper since the students have athirst and anguish for participation in variousMoot Court Competitions and since they haveparticipated in earlier Moot Court Competitions,therefore, they ought to have come for selection.But the reasons now assigned by the respondent donot appear to be proper. They should not bedeprived of such participation and this Court isnot inclined to ascertain what exactly is thereason for non-participation of the students inthe selection process and why the University hasnot considered the selection of the petitionersand to sponsor them for Moot Court Competitions."9.We are unable to subscribe to the said views expressed by thelearned Single Judge. It appears that the respondents 1 and 2 haveparticipated in Moot Court Competition at New York on their ownvolition without being sponsored by the authorities concerned.Therefore, their participation will not give them a right to getfinancial assistance from the Government, although the object of theUniversity is to promote the students for better standard ofexcellence in law. The respondents 1 and 2 are unable to point outany statutory duty or legal obligation on the part of the Universityor the Government, which they failed to exercise that was cast uponthem. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the order passed by thelearned Single Judge in directing the appellants to consider the caseof the respondents 1 and 2 to extend financial assistance for theirparticipation in Moot Court Competition. Accordingly, we set asidethe order of the learned Single Judge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.In the result, the Writ appeal is allowed. No costs.11.It is submitted before us that the respondents 1 and 2 havealready submitted an application to the Government to grant financialassistance for their participation. It is the discretion of theGovernment to pass orders, if it could consider the case of thestudents sympathetically.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartarTo1.The Vice Chancellor,Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,No.5, Poompozhil,Greenways Road, Chennai-28.2.The Registrar (i/c)Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,No.5, Poompozhil,Greenways Road, Chennai-28.3.The Director (i/c)School of Excellence in Law,Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,No.5, Poompozhil,Greenways Road,Chennai-28.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.183181 cc To Mr.P.Theogaraj, Advocate, SR.181182 ccs To Mr.S.Badrinath, Advocate, SR.17976W.A.No.1453/2007RB(CO)SRA(27/5/2009)