S. Felix vs The Controller of Examination, The Registrar, The Tamilnadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, The Controller of Examination and The Registrar, University of Madras, Chennai

S. Vaidyanathan, J.—The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition to get a qualification, not education. Qualification is different from Education. A person who is qualified may not be educated. An educated person need not be qualified.

The case of the petitioner is that he joined the five year integrated law course in Madras University through Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai in 1993; the registration number is 5930267; he duly pursued the course and appeared for the examination; after completion of the course in 1998, he had some arrears. It is the further case of the petitioner that in order to help his father in the business, as there was no person to accompany him in running the said business, he was looking after the business and therefore, he could not write the examination and pass all the subjects. Further, according to him, due to the sudden demise of his father, he had the burden of taking care of his family members and hence he could not write the examination. Now, according to the petitioner, his family members are well settled and he wanted to appear for the examination and he is genuinely interested in completing the law degree to carry on the noble legal profession. Further, according to the petitioner, when he approached the 3rd respondent to appear in the forth coming examination to complete the law degree, he was informed by the University of Madras that the University of Madras is no longer conducting the examination for Law degree and the entire process of exams for Law degree courses have been taken over by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached the respondents 1 and 2 and enquired about the procedure to appear for the examination, he was informed that the entire records pertaining to his law degree were with the University of Madras and they have no clue about that and without any records and scrutinizing the same, they are help less. Again, the petitioner made a representation on 22.03.2013 to the respondents herein requesting permission to appear for the examination in the remaining subjects and complete the law degree course. Since there was no response, he has come forward with this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 are responsible for conducting examination and therefore, they should permit the petitioner to appear for the examination and complete the remaining subjects, as there is no legal impediments or specific bar to disallow him to appear for the examination.

The learned counsel appearing for the University of Madras submitted that they are no longer conducting the said course and the entire process of examination of the law degree course have been taken over subsequently by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. She further submitted that they are willing to forward the available records with them to the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University and the University of Madras has no say in this matter.

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that there are no records available with them and in case all records are sent by the University of Madras, they will scrutinize the same and in case the petitioner is eligible, he would be permitted to take up the examination, but he strenuously contended that it cannot be construed that they have given assurance or permission that the petitioner would be permitted to write the examination.

I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

From the pleadings of the petitioner itself, it is clear that the said degree course is no longer in existence. Out of the 20 subjects, in the past 20 years, the petitioner has got 18 papers as arrears. Whether at this distance of time, he should be permitted to appear for the examination is a point to be considered and decided by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University.

Therefore, it is open to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and this Court is not giving any specific direction that the case of the petitioner should be considered as 20 years have gone by, from the date of joining the college. That apart, the prayer sought for in the writ petition is also not maintainable, as this Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the petitioner to appear for the examination to be conducted by respondents 1 and 2 to complete the law degree course, without necessary records.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.