AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the third Respondent to issue No Objection Certificate for
transfer of the Petitioner from B.P.T. Degree Course and direct the 2nd Respondent to admit the Petitioner in any one of the self-financing
Colleges for Physiotherapy in and around Madras, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
Petitioner joined Bachelor of Physiotherapy Degree Course at the 3rd Respondent-College on 15-10-1997 in the category of payment seat and
he paid the necessary fees of Rs. 65,200/- at the time of admission. According to the Petitioner, in the third Respondent-College, right from the
time of admission, there was heavy ragging by Senior students and the behaviour of the students was also not upto the standard. The Senior
students often used to rag the Petitioner and his friends. According to Petitioner, though he brought this to the notice of the Principal, he was asked
to bear the same for some more days and that action will be initiated against the Senior students. Even in the Hostel of third Respondent-College,
he was ragged by senior students. According to the Petitioner, on 22-3-1998 his seniors, namely, (1) Balamurugan, (2) Krishnakumar, (3) Ashok
Kumar, (4) Ashok Venkatesh and (5) Rajendran along with two other henchmen, who were not students of third Respondent-College, ragged the
Petitioner, and made him naked and asked him to go around the Hostel in night hours, which resulted in great shame and mental agony to the
Petitioner. He was forced to do all sorts of obscene and vulgar movements. He was even subjected to do unnatural sexual deeds and his seniors
attempted to have homosexual relationship with him. With the help of his other friends and Warden, he prevented his Senior students from
indulging in such ragging. According to the Petitioner, immediately on the next day he made a complaint to the third Respondent. Third Respondent
called the five students and warned them. They were also asked to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Petitioner has further stated in the affidavit that when
he was doing his Second Year, on 15-7-1998, the said five persons came to his hostel and tortured him by adopting all sorts of indecent
behaviours and took him to the terrace and threw him from the terrace. Due to this, he sustained severe stomach pain and also injuries all over his
body. Immediately, his friends took him to the nearby Bhavani Karthik Hospital and admitted him. The said incident was also published in
''Dinamani'' of Salem Edition. Thereafter, his friends contacted his father and narrated the said incident, and thereupon, his father contacted the
third Respondent and made a complaint. But the third Respondent failed to initiate any action against the said five senior students and prevented his
father from lodging police complaint against them. According to Petitioner, after the incident, his father took him to his native place at
Kancheepuram and gave him medical treatment after obtaining two months medical leave from third Respondent. On 20-7-1998, Petitioner''s
father sent a representation to the second Respondent and first Respondent, narrating the said incident and also reported that there was every
possibility of danger to Petitioner''s life in the College campus. He, therefore; requested the third Respondent to transfer the Petitioner to any one
of the self-financing colleges in and around Madras and Kancheepuram, or in particular College of Physiotherapy, Savitha Dental College at
Poonamallee. On receipt of the said letter, first Respondent forwarded the same to the second Respondent. On 11-8-1998, second Respondent
sent a letter to Petitioner stating that they can transfer him provided the Petitioner furnished (1) No Objection Certificate from the third
Respondent-College, (2) No Objection Certificate from any other College which can accommodate him, (3) Demand Draft for Rs. 500/- and (4)
Original Mark sheet of the First Year Degree Course. Immediately, Petitioner approached the third Respondent and sought for no objection
certificate, but the third Respondent told him that such incidents will not happen in future. According to Petitioner, he has no belief in the words of
third Respondent, since she failed to take any action in spite of the Petitioner''s three complaints on three occasions earlier and also about the
incident on 15-7-1998 which made him hospitalised for two months. Petitioner has stated that having no other alternative remedy, he has filed this
writ petition for the aforementioned relief.
Detailed counter affidavit has been filed by Respondents 2 and 3.
Second Respondent, namely, Registrar of Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University has filed the counter stating that as per communication
dated 22-6-1998, Petitioner was requested to produce certain documents, to consider the question of admitting him in some other College. But
after that letter, Petitioner did not contact them, nor did he comply with the requirements made in the letter dated 22-6-1998. Therefore, no action
could be taken. It is also said that as per the Regulations of the 2nd Respondent-University, normally transfer of candidates from one affiliated
Institution to another affiliated Institution is not granted, except under extraordinary circumstances when the Vice-Chancellor himself decides on the
transfer, if the transfer is within the sanctioned strength of the College to which the student is to be transferred. According to second Respondent,
transfer can be made only at the beginning of the Academic Year, and, in case of transfer from Government Institutions to private institutions or
from the Government to other Institutions or vice versa, permission from the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, should be sought for. It is
also said that transfer from one Institution to another Institution cannot be claimed as of right. Second Respondent, therefore, prayed for dismissal
of the writ petition.
In the detailed counter affidavit filed by third Respondent, it is said that no such incident as alleged by Petitioner took place, and that the entire
writ petition is worded in such a way that the Petitioner should be taken out of the College, after causing a bad name to the third Respondent-
College. It is said that the allegation that the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 65,200/- at the time of joining the College, is not correct. What he paid
was only Rs. 49,700/-, and what the third Respondent received was only the fees prescribed by the Government. From 15-10-1997 to 13-5-
1998, there was not even a single complaint given by Petitioner that he was ragged, humiliated and put to shame as alleged by him in his affidavit.
On 13-5-1998, Petitioner addressed a letter to 2nd Respondent, with a copy endorsed to third Respondent, wherein, he has requested the 2nd
Respondent for a change of College either to the City, or to Adhiparasakthy College of Paramedical Courses, Melmaruvathur, on the ground that
the place where he is presently studying is not suitable to his health and also for the reason that he has an ailing mother. According to third
Respondent, in that letter seeking transfer, Petitioner has not whispered anything about the alleged ragging. It is further said that there are about 50
inmates in the Hostel, and there has not been a single complaint given by any inmate so far regarding any type of ragging. A full-time Warden is
also there. Apart from that, there are also three staff members accommodated in the Hostel to monitor the studies and to help out the hostilities in
their studies. According to the third Respondent, the five students mentioned by the Petitioner are day college students of their College and they
are not hostilities, and they are all staying in a nearby residential house on rental basis. It is said that the distance between the College campus and
the hostel is roughly about 4 kms., and without prior permission from the Dean or the Administrative Officer, no one can visit the hostilities. The
allegations that an enquiry was held and five students were found guilty and they were fined, were all denied specifically by third Respondent. The
further allegation that on 15-7-1998 these five students threw him from the terrace as a result of which he is said to have sustained injuries, is also
denied by third Respondent. It is said that the Petitioner along with his friends, went for an Excursion and they returned only on 15-7-1998. After
the return from Excursion, Petitioner was not feeling well. So, he was taken to the doctor. Neither the Petitioner nor his father had made any
complaint to show that the Petitioner suffered any injuries or that he was treated for those injuries alleged to have been suffered by him on 15-7-
1998. The hospital records, if produced, will prove otherwise. According to third Respondent, there is no publication of ''Dhinamani'' from Salem.
Moreover, no news item regarding the alleged incident was published in any daily. It could be seen that the Petitioner''s father took the Petitioner to
Bhavani Karthik Hospital, where Petitioner took treatment for two days, namely, on 16th and 17th July, 1998. This is specifically admitted in the
Medical Certificate obtained from a Doctor in Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai-10 on 18-7-1998. Hence it is clear that the Petitioner
was at Madras on 18-7-1998 and was not taken to his native place for treatment. If he was at his native place, he could not have been seen by a
Doctor at Madras. It is also said that the Petitioner had not taken any medical leave for two months and thereafter left for his native place.
According to third Respondent, in his representation to second Respondent, Petitioner has stated the name of the Daily as ''Dhina Bhoomi'' and not
''Dhina Mani''. Petitioner''s father, on enquiries, has said that his son was assaulted due to previous year''s ragging incident Third Respondent
explained to the Petitioner''s father that unless the monetary loss that might be caused to the Institution is not compensated by getting another
candidate in the place of the Petitioner, transferring the Petitioner from their College would be difficult. This infuriated the Petitioner''s father and,
therefore, the writ petition has been filed, to harass the third Respondent. Therefore, the third Respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
Along with the counter-affidavit, third Respondent has also filed a typed set of papers, containing the Bills issued by the Hospital wherein
Petitioner took treatment for his illness. Third Respondent has also filed affidavits of the Warden of the Hostel, Lecturer and Tutor who are
occupying the Hostel and supervising the same. In all these affidavits, the deponents have denied any incident on 15-7-1998 as alleged by
Petitioner. According to third Respondent, it could be seen from the materials on record that it is only with a view to get the Petitioner transferred
from the third Respondent-College, Petitioner''s father has caused the filing of this writ petition, making false allegations.
Petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit of third Respondent denying the contentions raised therein, and reiterating the averments made
by him in his affidavit.
Transfer from one College to another cannot be claimed as of right. However, under extraordinary circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor is
empowered to decide on the question of transfer, if the transfer is within the sanctioned strength of the College to which the student is to be
transferred.
Petitioner has come to this Court for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the third Respondent to issue a No Objection Certificate. Once it
is found that he has no legal right to get a transfer, naturally he has to prove the extraordinary circumstances which make it impossible for him to
continue the Course in third Respondent-College, or atleast he must make the circumstances to justify his request. It is to plead that extraordinary
circumstance, Petitioner has come before this Court with the case that from the very beginning of his admission, he has been ragged by his seniors,
and the atmosphere is not good for him to continue his studies in that College.
Taking into consideration the various circumstances alleged by the Petitioner. I, feel that the Petitioner has miserably failed in his attempt.
The first documentary evidence is the complaint given by the Petitioner''s father on 20-7-1998. In that letter, he has named five students of the
third Respondent College having beaten up his son severely, as a result of which his son was hospitalised on 15-7-1998 in Bhavani Karthik
Hospital. He has given the names as P. Balamurugan, Krishnakumar, Ashok Kumar, Ashok Venkatesh and Rajendran. He has also further stated
in that letter that this has been established by the news items published in Dhina Bhoomi of Salem Edition. He has also said in that letter that when
he rushed to the Hospital to see his son, the Hospital authorities were reluctant to issue the accident details and treatment particulars. He has
further said that when enquired, he came to know that the reason for the assault on his son was due to previous year''s ragging incident, when his
son gave the names of the students to the Management of the College. So, it is clear from that letter dated 20-7-1998, that it was due to some
quarrel between the Petitioner and other five students and not on account of any ragging on that day. What the Petitioner''s father refers to in his
complaint is, the previous year''s ragging about which the Petitioner is alleged to have given details to the Management of the College. The Medical
Certificate dated 18-7-1998 issued by Assistant Surgeon of Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital shows that the Petitioner was suffering
from multiple swelling abdomen due to injury in abdomen and was taking treatment on 16-7-1998 and 17-7-1998 at Karthik Hospital, Bhavani
and was taking further treatment from 18-7-1998 to update under his care. Along with the typed set of papers, except the letter referred to above,
no other document was filed regarding the alleged incident. The other two letters which have been produced along with the typed set of papers
are, (1) Letter from the Chief Minister''s Special Cell to the Academic Officer, Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, on a complaint by the
Petitioner''s father, and (2) Letter from the Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, to the Petitioner herein. The complaint to
the Chief Minister''s Cell was also similar to the one dated 20-7-1998, addressed to the Registrar of Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University,
which forms part of the typed set of papers filed by the second Respondent, as to what should be done for getting a transfer.
On 15-7-1998, Petitioner himself has written a letter to the third Respondent wherein he has said thus:
I am not feeling well due to participation of 2 days Tour Programme, organised by our Physiotherapy College and I have taken treatment in the
College Hospital also. My father informed me over phone that my mother is in sick-bed and he will come and take me to home on 16th. Hence I
request you to kindly grant me leave for 3 days on 16th, 17th and 18th July, 1998.
It could be seen that on 13-7-1998, Petitioner was treated for vomiting in Annai J.K.K. Sampoorani Animal Hospital, Ethirmedu, Komarapalayam
and the O.P. ticket is filed among the typed set of papers by third Respondent. From a reading of the letter dated 15-7-1998, written by Petitioner
to the Principal of third Respondent-College, it is clear that the Petitioner''s father had already been informed about the Petitioner''s illness and
Petitioner''s father wanted to take him to his native village for which he sought leave. Before the writ petition was filed, Petitioner''s father filed a
complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarapalayam. In connection with the same, investigation was also conducted by the concerned
Police Officer. From that letter, it could be seen that the Petitioner''s father approached the five students, namely, Balamurugan, Krishna Kumar,
Ashok Kumar, Ashok Venkatesh and Rajendran and compelled them to say that ragging is prevailing in this College. These students refused and
informed the incident to the Principal of the College. It was at that time, the Petitioner''s father informed the third Respondent that the real ailment
was due to ragging and that he has made a complaint about the five students along with one Franklin. It was found that Franklin was on leave and
was not in station at all. It could be further seen that the senior students were also beaten up at the instance of the Petitioner''s father and they
suffered serious injuries and were taken to hospital. It is also stated in that reply that the Petitioner''s father threatened the Principal should be
transferred from the third Respondent-College, and if he is not able to get the transfer, he will discontinue his studies. In the last reply letter, we
could see how meritorious the College, is, and for the last few years how it is getting First Prize. It is also getting Gold Medal every year for its
performance. Only because of the merit of the College, Petitioner''s father also wanted to admit his son in that College, and his present attempt is
only to spoil the name of the Institution because transfer was not given. Regarding the incident alleged to have taken place on 22-3-1998, referred
to in para 3 of the affidavit, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that any such thing happened. In fact, the case of the Petitioner is that
proceedings were initiated against the five students and they were also fined. This incident is specifically denied by the Principal. According to the
Principal, there was no enquiry, and no fine was imposed on any one, and there was also no complaint made by the Petitioner. It is also alleged by
the Petitioner that the Warden also intervened at that time in preventing the Petitioner from being ragged. It is the very same Warden who has filed
an affidavit before this Court stating that no incident happened on any date, and at no point of time ragging took place in the College. As against
the Warden, Petitioner has no case that he is not speaking the truth, or that he has any ill-will towards the Petitioner. If the incidents alleged to have
taken place on 22-3-1998 and 15-7-1998 are not true, then I do not find any ground to hold that there is any extraordinary circumstance
warranting the transfer of the Petitioner from that College. Even from the complaint given by the Petitioner''s father, it could be seen that there was
some quarrel between the Petitioner and other students on 15-7-1998. The reason stated therein has nothing to do with the alleged ragging in the
Institution.
From the records available before this Court, it could be seen that the third Respondent has made earnest attempt to find out the truth and it is
after taking evidence, the Principal of the third Respondent-College has come to the conclusion that the allegations made by the Petitioner are not
true, and under the guise of falsely alleging that there was some ragging in which he was alleged injured, the Petitioner is trying to get a transfer from
the College.
I also find from the various records that are filed in this case that the third Respondent College is meritorious and it is also getting first rank and
gold medal for the last few years. If at all any incidents as alleged by the Petitioner take place in the College, the students cannot be meritorious.
The 2nd Respondent-University has also praised the discipline maintained in the third Respondent College.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the Petitioner relied on a letter alleged to have been received by the Petitioner. A perusal of the
same shows that the date is not clear. It was received at Kancheepuram on 4-8-1998, as could be seen from the postal stamp. A reading of the
same makes it clear that the Petitioner''s uncle had beaten up some of the senior students, and Petitioner''s friends had thanked the Petitioner''s
relation for having done so. Learned Counsel relied on the sentence, ''After this incident, strict measures have been taken in our college''. The
incident that was referred to in the letter is, beating of some of the senior students by Petitioner''s uncle. It has nothing to do with the so-called
ragging. The previous letter to the, Sub Inspector of Police also refers to the beating up of the senior students by the Petitioner''s father and that
they had been hospitalised. Hence, no reliance can be placed on this letter.
Ragging is considered to be the most uncivilised thing, and nobody will support if in fact such incident had taken place in any Institution. Severe
action also will have to be taken in such cases. Public opinion is badly against ragging and the Government has also taken necessary action to
prevent such instances. But that public opinion should not be used by the Petitioner for achieving a selfish end by making false allegations, and
thereby tarnishing the image of a meritorious Institution. In my opinion, it is worse than ragging.
In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and consequently the same is dismissed, with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 5,000/-.
(Rupees Five thousand only), WMP No. 25135 of 1998 for interim direction is also dismissed.