N.Manivannan v. The Registrar,Tamil Nadu Veterinary andVeterinary and Animal Sciences University,Madhavaram Milk Colony,Chennai-600 051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 29-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.13604 of 2009N.Manivannan.. Petitioner.VersusThe Registrar,Tamil Nadu Veterinary andVeterinary and Animal Sciences University,Madhavaram Milk Colony,Chennai-600 051... Respondent. Prayer: Petition filed U/A 226 of the constitution of India seekingfor a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issueProvisional, Degree and other certificates relating to B.Vsc. Course(I.D.No.1897-1989-1990) to the petitioner.For Petitioner : Mr.S.KamadevanFor Respondent : Mr.G.Sankaran Special Government Pleader O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up forfinal hearing and disposal.3. The petitioner has stated that after completing his plus twocourse, in the month of March, 1989, he had applied for admission inB.V.Sc. Course, in the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal SciencesUniversity, Chennai, during the academic year 1989-1990. Thepetitioner belongs to Hindu Tholuva Naicker Community, which isclassified as a Most Backward Class community, as per the relevantGovernment Orders. Therefore, the Tahsildar, Attur, had issued acommunity certificate, dated 7.6.1989, indicating that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner belongs to a Most Backward Class community. On the basisof the said certificate, the petitioner had got the admission in therespondent University, under the Most Backward Class communityquota. 4. It has been further stated that while the petitioner wasundergoing the B.V.Sc. Course, the respondent University had issueda communication, in the month of July, 1993, stating that he shouldget a fresh community certificate from the concerned Tahsildar.Therefore, the petitioner had applied to the Tahsildar, Attur. Thesaid Tahsildar, had issued a community certificate, on 20.10.1993,stating that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Tholuva Naickercommunity, classified as a Backward Class. Thereafter, therespondent University had issued a show cause notice stating thatthe petitioner had issued a false certificate and that he hadsuppressed certain facts relating to the community to which hebelongs, while getting his admission in B.V.Sc. course in therespondent University. 5. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition before thisCourt, challenging the said show cause notice. The said writpetition had been dismissed, on the ground that the proceedingsunder challenge was only a show cause notice and therefore, thepetitioner could submit his explanation for the said show causenotice. Even though the petitioner had submitted an explanation tothe said show cause notice, no further action had been taken. Whileso, the petitioner had completed the course in the year, 1996.However, the respondent University had issued a communication,stating that the results of the petitioner had been withheld asthere were conflicting certificates issued by the same authority andthat it has to be resolved by a competent Court of law. 6. It has been further stated that the petitioner and oneArulanantha Krishnan had filed writ petitions before this Court,challenging the orders withholding their certificates. The writpetitions had been dismissed by this Court, by an order, dated19.1.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive anycommunication from the counsel, who had appeared in the writpetition. However, Arulanantha Krishnan, had filed an appeal, inW.A.No.672 of 2002 and it had been allowed holding that he could notbe made to suffer in view of the fact that Hindu Tholuva Naickercommunity does not find a place in the backward class list, as wellas in the Most Backward Class list. As such, it cannot be said thatthe petitioner had got admission in the respondent University bycommitting fraud or by producing false community certificate or bymaking a false representation. In such circumstances, the petitionerhas preferred the present writ petition before this Court, underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentUniversity had submitted that the petitioner had been provisionallyadmitted in B.V.Sc. Degree course, during the year 1989-1990, underthe Most Backward Class quota, based on the community certificateissued by the Head Quarters, Deputy Tahilsdar, Attur, certifyingthat the petitioner belonged to Hindu Tholuva Naicker community,which is a Most Backward Class community. The Government of TamilNadu had issued instructions in Government LetterNo.18734/BC&MBC/92-4, dated 26.3.1993, stating that the communitycertificates issued by the revenue authorities for the Hindu TholuvaNaicker community, from 28.3.1989 to 16.5.1990, had not been issuedproperly, in accordance with law and therefore, the studentsbelonging to such categories may be directed to produce freshcommunity certificates. 8. Purusant to the directions issued by the Government of TamilNadu, the petitioner had produced a fresh community certificate,dated 20.10.1993, issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Attur, statingthat he belonged to Hindu Tholuva Naicker-Backward Class community.Since there were two community certificates in respect of thepetitioner, the Government, in its Letter No.5472/BC&MBC/93-1, dated8.12.1993, addressed to the District Collector, Salem, had requestedhim to take necessary action to cancel the Most Backward Classcommunity certificate issued to the petitioner and to report theaction taken in the said matter, to the Registrar of the respondentUniversity, for taking appropriate action against the students whohad got admission in B.V.Sc. in the respondent University byproducing a false community certificates. 9. It has been further stated that the District Collector,Salem, had informed that, as per the report given by the Tahsildar,Attur, the community certificate stating "Tholuva Naicker-MostBackward Class" issued to the petitioner has been cancelled and ithas been certified that the petitioner belongs to a Backward Class.The petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, inW.P.No.9949 of 1996, praying for a writ of mandamus to direct therespondent University to release the results. The said writ petitionhad been dismissed by an order of this Court, dated 17.7.1998,stating that it would be open to the petitioner to prove that he didnot get admission in the respondent College, illegally. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, inW.P.No.8957 of 1997, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,to call for the records, in Proc.No.8294/C2/93, dated 23.5.1996, andto quash the same and to issue a direction to release the result ofthe examination and for the issuance of the provisional/degreecertificates. By an order, dated 19.1.1998, this Court had dismissedthe writ petition filed by the petitioner herein stating that thepetitioner had committed fraud by getting the community certificate, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ without disclosing his eligibility for the same. It had also beenpointed out that the petitioner had prevented the eligiblecandidates from being admitted in the B.V.Sc. course in therespondent University and that he had got an undue and unfairadvantage. It was further held that merely because the petitionerwas allowed to continue in the course he would not be entitled tothe discretionary relief from this Court. 11. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner,and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent,this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has notshown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, as prayedfor in the present writ petition. It is clear that the petitionerhad preferred a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.8957 of1997, to quash the proceedings, in Proc.No.8294/C2/93, dated23.5.1996, and to issue a direction to the respondent therein toissue the provisional certificate, the degree certificate and theother certificates to the petitioner. This Court, by an order, dated19.1.1998, had dismissed the writ petition, in W.P.No.8957 of 1997,filed by the petitioner . Since the order of this Court, dated19.1.1998, had not been challenged by the petitioner, it had becomefinal. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to file a freshwrit petition for the same cause of action. Therefore, the presentwrit petition cannot be sustained, as it would be hit by theprinciple of res judicata. Accordingly, the present writ petition isliable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshToThe Registrar,Tamil Nadu Veterinary andVeterinary and Animal Sciences University,Madhavaram Milk Colony,Chennai-600 051.+1cc to Mr.G.Sankaran, Advocate Sr 32961+1cc to Mr.S.Kamadevan, Advocate Sr 33371+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 33314CK(CO)km/12.8.Writ Petition No.13604 of 2009