✦ Madras High Court

Judgment · High Court

N PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed with libertyto the petitioner to file appropriate writ petition, if so advised

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. Since there is a prohibition, if the petitioner is seeking any relief, he has to necessarily to challenge the validity of the said statutory provision. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate writ petition, if so advised.…

Judgment

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED:21.03.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.3295 of 2011 K.Murugavel: PetitionerVs.

1.

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

2.

Mother Teresa Women's University, Represented by the Registrar, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order inKa.No.02/Ma.Pa/Pa.Thi/Tha.A.U.Sa/2010/dated 06.12.2010 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quah the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground. For Petitioner: Mr.T.Lajapathi RoyFor Respondent-1: Mr.R.Anandaraj Govt. AdvocateFor Respondent-2: Mr.B.Pugalenthi ORDER******** The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order, dated06.12.2010, declining the request of the petitioner seeking employment on compassionate ground, on the ground that the petitioner is a male. 2. The learned counsel for the second respondent University submitted that Section 19 of Mother Teresa Women's University Act, 1984, prohibits the appointment of male members in the University in any post, either teaching or non-teaching and if only no qualified woman is available for appointment as an officer of the University or to any post in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2University, a qualified person other than a woman, may be appointed as such officer or to such post, as the case may be.

Operative part

3.

Since there is a prohibition, if the petitioner is seeking any relief, he has to necessarily to challenge the validity of the said statutory provision. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate writ petition, if so advised. Nocosts. MPKSd/-Assistant Registrar (Crl side)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar ToThe Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.9209. W.P(MD)No.3295 of 2011 Dated:21.03.20122P/3CRPB 09.04.2012

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, this writ petition is dismissed with libertyto the petitioner to file appropriate writ petition, if so advised

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; Mother Teresa Women's University Act, 1984 — s. 19.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments