High Court · 2025

W.P(MD)No.32880 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 18.11.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHAWrit Petition(MD)No.32880 of 2025and W.M.P(MD).No.25921 and 25922 of 2025R.Dharan .. PetitionerVs1.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600032.2.The Velammal College of Nursing, rep., by its Administrative Officer, Tuticorin Ring Road, Anuppanadi, Madurai.3.The Principal, Velammal College of Nursing, Tuticorin Ring Road, Anuppanadi, Madurai.4.The Principal, Jain College of Nursing, rep., by its Administrative Officer, Dindigul. .. Respondents1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.32880 of 2025Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to approve the admission of the petitioner in the fourth respondent college and permit him to complete the course. For Petitioner : Mr.KPS.Palanivel Rajan Senior Counsel for M/s.KPS Law Associates For R1 : Mr.A.S.Vaigunth ORDERThis writ petition has been filed seeking for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to approve the admission of the petitioner in the fourth respondent college and permit him to complete the course.2. The petitioner would submit that after completing his higher Secondary education in March-2022, he had joined second respondent-college under the management quota for the undergraduate course in B.Sc Nursing. The petitioner had written his first semester examination in March-2023 and second semester in December-2023. Thereafter, he had continued his studies and attended the third semester in April-2024.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.32880 of 20253. It is the case of the petitioner that on 08.08.2024 while he and his friends were in a classroom, one Mohan and Sakthi Sridharan had entered into a wordy quarrel, which subsequently escalated into a physical altercation. The petitioner states that when he attempted to advice and persuade Sakthi to settle the issue, he was instead attack by him. Upon the incident coming to the knowledge of the third respondent, the third respondent suspended Mohan, the petitioner and another person Kabilan, on 08.08.2024, but no such action was taken against Sakthi Sridharan on the ground that he had been injured. The petitioner would submit that he had no role in the scuffle between Mohan and Sakthi Sridharan, but has been unfairly subjected to suspension.4. The petitioner would further submit that at the request of the third respondent, the first respondent vide its communication dated 29.11.2024 had permitted discharging the petitioner from the college and this fact was communicated by the second respondent through communication dated 05.12.2024 and the petitioner was directed to collect the certificates on 09.12.2024. The petitioner had challenged this unfair discharge by filing W.P(MD).No.31527 of 2024 dated 03.03.2025 and this Court, without going into the merits, directed the third respondent to reconsider the continuation of the petitioner in the third respondent institution and directed the petitioner to 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.32880 of 2025prefer the representation to the third respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner had given a representation, which was received on 05.03.2025 by the third respondent.5. The petitioner would submit that the University Grants Commission had mandated the first and second respondents to constitute a committee as defined in Regulation 3(d)-Collegiate Student Grievance Redressal Committee and 3(g)-Departmental Student Grievance Redressal Committee. The petitioner would submit that he belongs to a marginalized community and hails from a poor family. Therefore, he would be protected by these regulations. 6. Regulations 7(i) further provided an appeal before the Ombudsman appointed under Regulation 6(i) of the Regulation. However, the third respondent justified the impugned communication dated 27.03.2025 by relying on CCTV footage, injury report, scan report etc. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the second respondent had directed the petitioner to obtain his certificates, he was orally informed that the transfer certificate would be issued only if he paid the remaining two years of fees to the institution, which is prohibited under regulations 3(vi) of the aforesaid regulations. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.32880 of 20257. The petitioner would submit that thereafter he was issued with No Objection Certificate and all the original certificates including a transfer certificate dated 23.09.2025 was given to him during the pendency of W.P(MD).No.15672 of 2025 and he had thereafter withdrawn the said writ petition.8. The petitioner would submit that he approached the fourth respondent which is affiliated to the same University for continuing his B.Sc Nursing course. The college has 6 vacant seats and had expressed willingness to admit the petitioner provided the University grants permission for such transfer. This was also communicated both to the petitioner as well as the University. The petitioner would submit that he is not seeking a fresh admission, but only a continuation of his course, which he had discontinued and left the second respondent-college. The petitioner would submit that despite the readiness of the new college and the issuance of No Objection Certificate by the second respondent, the first respondent University was yet to pass orders permitting the petitioner to study in the fourth respondent Institution. This is because the transfer certificate of the petitioner issued by the third respondent shows that he had discontinued the course and not recorded that it was a transfer. Therefore, aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.32880 of 20259. Heard the learned counsel on either side.10. The first respondent has not proceeded to grant the permission to the petitioner to transfer the petitioner to the fourth respondent-college, since the transfer certificate, which has been issued by the third respondent, namely, Vellammal College of Nursing, would read that the petitioner had discontinued the course. In Sl.No.7 therein, to the query as to whether the petitioner is qualified for promotion to a higher class, it has been shows as 'No-Discontinued'. However, No Objection Certificate of the same date has been issued by the third respondent-college, wherein it has been clearly stated that the third respondent has no objection to the petitioner pursuing his further education in some other Institution and to his decision, to continue his studies elsewhere. A mere reading of the above No Objection Certificate clearly indicates that it is a case of transfer. The first respondent ought to take note of the No Objection Certificate issued by the third respondent and on this basis, approve the admission of the petitioner to the fourth respondent college and permit him to complete course. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to approve the admission of the petitioner in the fourth respondent college and permit him to complete the course taking into account of the No Objection Certificate issued by the third respondent.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.32880 of 202511. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 18.11.2025NCC : Yes/NoIndex : Yes/NoInternet:YesRmkToThe Registrar,Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University,No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy,Chennai 600032.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.32880 of 2025P.T.ASHA, J. Rmk Writ Petition(MD)No.32880 of 2025 18.11.20258/8