High Court · 2025

W.P No.18432 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPANWrit Petition No.18432 of 2024K.R.Aparajit ... Petitioner ..Vs..1.The Director,Centre for Academic Courses,Anna University, Chennai 600025.2.Additional Controller of ExaminationAnna University,Chennai – 600025.... RespondentsPRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to upgrade the petitioner classification of provisional and degree certificates to “First class with distinction” consequently issue corrected Provisional and degree Certificate to him by considering his representations dated 08.03.2022, 06.06.2023 and finally 07.02.2024 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Sudhir BabuFor Respondents : Mr.U.Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024ORDERThe present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representations dated 08.03.2022, 06.06.2023 and 07.02.2024 within a prescribed time.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had secured admission to the B.E. Computer Science and Engineering Programme at Anna University and has studied well and secured cumulative grade point average (CGPA) of 9.12. However, in the month of March, the petitioner has affected with viral infection, which was later diagnosed as brain fever. Hence, he has applied for a break of study for the 6th semester. Based on his request, the respondent issued an order dated 02.04.2019, permitting the petitioner to rejoin the programme in the 6th semester during the December 2019 to May 2020 session. It is contended that, pursuant to the order dated 02.04.2019, he rejoined the 6th semester in December 2019. However, the respondents subsequently amended the earlier order and modified the rejoining semester from the 6th to the 8th semester. It is the further submission of the petitioner that, as per the Regulations, the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024petitioner is eligible to be awarded a First Class with Distinction, as he has got CGPA of 9.12. Whereas, relying on a subsequent letter dated 10.12.2019, wherein the petitioner’s rejoining was construed as being from the 8th semester, the respondents rejected his request for classification with distinction. By letter dated 23.02.2020, the respondents stated that the petitioner’s Grade Point Average (GPA) for the 6th semester in the April 2019 session was “0”, and on this basis, denied his request. It is the further submission of the petitioner that once he was permitted to rejoin the 6th semester after break in study, the awarding of “0” GPA for the 6th semester is in contrary to the relevant Regulations. Hence, the learned counsel prays to interfere with the same.3. The said contention was strongly objected by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents and would contend that, according to the Regulations 2015, in order to be awarded First Class with Distinction, a student must have passed all the subjects of all eight semesters in the first attempt within a maximum period of five years, which includes any authorized break of study. But in the case on hand, the petitioner, after availing a break of 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024study, rejoined the course only in the 8th semester and therefore, he is not eligible for being awarded First Class with Distinction. It is further submitted that though the earlier letter dated 02.04.2019, referred that the petitioner could rejoin in the 6th semester, this was issued inadvertently, as his application for a break of study was made only in April, after the cut-off date for the first assessment period had passed. Consequently, the said letter was corrected and modified by the subsequent letter dated 10.12.2019, wherein the petitioner was permitted to rejoin in the 8th semester.4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and also perused the materials available on record.5. It is not in serious dispute that the petitioner has applied for a break in study vide his application dated 01.04.2019 and based upon his request, the respondent has granted permission vide letter dated 02.04.2019. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to attach the scanned image of the letters dated 01.04.2019 and 02.04.2019.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 20245/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 20246/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 20246. As per the above letter dated 02.04.2019, it has been clearly mentioned that after the break of study, the petitioner was permitted to rejoin the programme in the 6th semester during the December 2019 to May 2020 session. It is the further submission of the petitioner that, as per the above letter, he rejoined the programme in December 2019. However, the respondent, without any authorization or justification, unilaterally issued another letter dated 10.12.2019, amending the rejoining semester from the 6th semester to the 8th semester. The learned counsel further submitted that such an amendment is in direct contravention of the applicable regulations, and that the respondent is estopped from unilaterally altering the terms of the earlier letter dated 02.04.2019, which had permitted rejoining in the 6th semester.7. However, the said submissions was controverted by the learned Standing Counsel, by relying upon Clause 6.2 of the Anna University Regulation 2015. It was contended that the last date for the first assessment falls in the month of March, whereas the petitioner had submitted his application for a break of study only in April 2019. Therefore, though the letter dated 02.04.2019 referred to rejoining in the 6th semester, this was an 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024erroneous reference. Thus, the respondents had every right to rectify the error and amend the letter accordingly. It is further submitted that, in accordance with Regulation 16.2, due to this amendment, the petitioner’s Grade Point Average for the 6th semester was considered as “0”. Therefore, as per the Regulation 14.2.1, the petitioner is not entitled for a First Class with Distinction. 8. However, this Court is unable to accept the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, as the counsel is unable to substantiate or place on record any material to establish that the last date for the first assessment fell in the month of March. Even while looking at the application, though the exact date is not mentioned, it is noted that the application was received on 01.04.2019. Had the respondents, in its letter dated 02.04.2019, clearly stated that the petitioner could rejoin only in the 8th semester, the petitioner might have reconsidered availing the break in study and opted to continue without interruption. However, based on the respondents assurance in the letter dated 02.04.2019, permitting his rejoining in the 6th semester, the petitioner acted accordingly and availed leave. The respondents cannot now, by relying on certain other rules which were neither cited nor substantiated before this 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024Court, unilaterally alter the rejoining of the petitioner with effect from 8th semester. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, by virtue of the letter dated 02.04.2019, the petitioner ought to have been considered to have rejoined the 6th semester after his break in study. If that being the case, in accordance with Regulation 14.2.1, the petitioner is deemed to have completed all his examinations in the first appearance, including those covering the period of his break. It is also pertinent to note that, apart from the above defence, the respondents have not seriously disputed about the CGPA of 9.12 secured by the petitioner.9. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, having secured a CGPA of 9.1.2, is entitled to the award of First Class with Distinction in terms of Clause 14.2.1 of the applicable regulations.10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. 22.08.2025ssiIndex : Yes Speaking Order : Yes /NoNeutral Citation Case: Yes/No9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024C. KUMARAPPAN, J.ssiTo:1.The Director,Centre for Academic Courses,Anna University, Chennai 600025.2.Additional Controller of ExaminationAnna University,Chennai – 600025.W.P.No.18432 of 202422.08.202510/10

W.P No.18432 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPANWrit Petition No.18432 of 2024K.R.Aparajit ... Petitioner ..Vs..1.The Director,Centre for Academic Courses,Anna University, Chennai 600025.2.Additional Controller of ExaminationAnna University,Chennai – 600025.... RespondentsPRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to upgrade the petitioner classification of provisional and degree certificates to “First class with distinction” consequently issue corrected Provisional and degree Certificate to him by considering his representations dated 08.03.2022, 06.06.2023 and finally 07.02.2024 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Sudhir BabuFor Respondents : Mr.U.Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024ORDERThe present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representations dated 08.03.2022, 06.06.2023 and 07.02.2024 within a prescribed time.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had secured admission to the B.E. Computer Science and Engineering Programme at Anna University and has studied well and secured cumulative grade point average (CGPA) of 9.12. However, in the month of March, the petitioner has affected with viral infection, which was later diagnosed as brain fever. Hence, he has applied for a break of study for the 6th semester. Based on his request, the respondent issued an order dated 02.04.2019, permitting the petitioner to rejoin the programme in the 6th semester during the December 2019 to May 2020 session. It is contended that, pursuant to the order dated 02.04.2019, he rejoined the 6th semester in December 2019. However, the respondents subsequently amended the earlier order and modified the rejoining semester from the 6th to the 8th semester. It is the further submission of the petitioner that, as per the Regulations, the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024petitioner is eligible to be awarded a First Class with Distinction, as he has got CGPA of 9.12. Whereas, relying on a subsequent letter dated 10.12.2019, wherein the petitioner’s rejoining was construed as being from the 8th semester, the respondents rejected his request for classification with distinction. By letter dated 23.02.2020, the respondents stated that the petitioner’s Grade Point Average (GPA) for the 6th semester in the April 2019 session was “0”, and on this basis, denied his request. It is the further submission of the petitioner that once he was permitted to rejoin the 6th semester after break in study, the awarding of “0” GPA for the 6th semester is in contrary to the relevant Regulations. Hence, the learned counsel prays to interfere with the same.3. The said contention was strongly objected by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents and would contend that, according to the Regulations 2015, in order to be awarded First Class with Distinction, a student must have passed all the subjects of all eight semesters in the first attempt within a maximum period of five years, which includes any authorized break of study. But in the case on hand, the petitioner, after availing a break of 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024study, rejoined the course only in the 8th semester and therefore, he is not eligible for being awarded First Class with Distinction. It is further submitted that though the earlier letter dated 02.04.2019, referred that the petitioner could rejoin in the 6th semester, this was issued inadvertently, as his application for a break of study was made only in April, after the cut-off date for the first assessment period had passed. Consequently, the said letter was corrected and modified by the subsequent letter dated 10.12.2019, wherein the petitioner was permitted to rejoin in the 8th semester.4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and also perused the materials available on record.5. It is not in serious dispute that the petitioner has applied for a break in study vide his application dated 01.04.2019 and based upon his request, the respondent has granted permission vide letter dated 02.04.2019. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to attach the scanned image of the letters dated 01.04.2019 and 02.04.2019.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 20245/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 20246/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 20246. As per the above letter dated 02.04.2019, it has been clearly mentioned that after the break of study, the petitioner was permitted to rejoin the programme in the 6th semester during the December 2019 to May 2020 session. It is the further submission of the petitioner that, as per the above letter, he rejoined the programme in December 2019. However, the respondent, without any authorization or justification, unilaterally issued another letter dated 10.12.2019, amending the rejoining semester from the 6th semester to the 8th semester. The learned counsel further submitted that such an amendment is in direct contravention of the applicable regulations, and that the respondent is estopped from unilaterally altering the terms of the earlier letter dated 02.04.2019, which had permitted rejoining in the 6th semester.7. However, the said submissions was controverted by the learned Standing Counsel, by relying upon Clause 6.2 of the Anna University Regulation 2015. It was contended that the last date for the first assessment falls in the month of March, whereas the petitioner had submitted his application for a break of study only in April 2019. Therefore, though the letter dated 02.04.2019 referred to rejoining in the 6th semester, this was an 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024erroneous reference. Thus, the respondents had every right to rectify the error and amend the letter accordingly. It is further submitted that, in accordance with Regulation 16.2, due to this amendment, the petitioner’s Grade Point Average for the 6th semester was considered as “0”. Therefore, as per the Regulation 14.2.1, the petitioner is not entitled for a First Class with Distinction. 8. However, this Court is unable to accept the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, as the counsel is unable to substantiate or place on record any material to establish that the last date for the first assessment fell in the month of March. Even while looking at the application, though the exact date is not mentioned, it is noted that the application was received on 01.04.2019. Had the respondents, in its letter dated 02.04.2019, clearly stated that the petitioner could rejoin only in the 8th semester, the petitioner might have reconsidered availing the break in study and opted to continue without interruption. However, based on the respondents assurance in the letter dated 02.04.2019, permitting his rejoining in the 6th semester, the petitioner acted accordingly and availed leave. The respondents cannot now, by relying on certain other rules which were neither cited nor substantiated before this 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024Court, unilaterally alter the rejoining of the petitioner with effect from 8th semester. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, by virtue of the letter dated 02.04.2019, the petitioner ought to have been considered to have rejoined the 6th semester after his break in study. If that being the case, in accordance with Regulation 14.2.1, the petitioner is deemed to have completed all his examinations in the first appearance, including those covering the period of his break. It is also pertinent to note that, apart from the above defence, the respondents have not seriously disputed about the CGPA of 9.12 secured by the petitioner.9. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, having secured a CGPA of 9.1.2, is entitled to the award of First Class with Distinction in terms of Clause 14.2.1 of the applicable regulations.10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. 22.08.2025ssiIndex : Yes Speaking Order : Yes /NoNeutral Citation Case: Yes/No9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.18432 of 2024C. KUMARAPPAN, J.ssiTo:1.The Director,Centre for Academic Courses,Anna University, Chennai 600025.2.Additional Controller of ExaminationAnna University,Chennai – 600025.W.P.No.18432 of 202422.08.202510/10