Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

M. Ayyappan Petitioner v. The Registrar, Tamil...

Madras High Court

Aug 13, 2012

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of "Certiorarified Mandamus" to call for and quash the impugned proceedings in C. No. 3248.Regr/Academic/A2/2009 dated 06.09.2010, and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to publish the petitioner's final semester results for the III year Bachelor of Law course held in May 2009 and to issue associated certificates (Transfer Certificate, Mark Statement, Conduct Certificate, Course Completion Certificate and Provisional Certificate).

The petitioner is an HIV-positive person who was admitted to a Government Law College for the 3-year B.L. degree course for the academic year 2006–2009. Prior to admission, from December 2005, he was engaged on a temporary/contractual basis as a Counsellor with the Tamil Nadu Networking People with HIV/AIDS. He sought and obtained permission from that organisation to continue counselling while studying.

After he had continued his studies, the college authorities communicated that his admission was irregular because he was employed elsewhere at the time of application, allegedly contrary to instructions issued to candidates by Dr. Ambedkar Law University, and consequently withheld his final semester result. The petitioner resigned from the counselling position on 21.08.2008 and replied that his service had been honorary and that he was not in the service of Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Despite this, the result was withheld on the ground of ineligibility (being employed when applying). The petitioner challenged the withholding of his result by filing the present writ petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the impugned order withholding the petitioner's final semester result on the ground that he was employed elsewhere at the time of making the application (and thus ineligible) ought to be quashed.
Whether the petitioner's engagement as a contractual/temporary Counsellor for an HIV/AIDS organisation — a post described in the opinion as a special post to be filled by persons affected by HIV/AIDS — can be equated with other forms of gainful employment rendering him ineligible for admission.
Whether the petitioner's resignation and his bona fides (including disclosure to relevant authorities) and completion of the course should lead to relief in the form of publishing the withheld final semester result.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner contended that his work as a Counsellor was honorary (not regular employment) and that he resigned from that post on 21.08.2008.
He had passed all examinations up to the point when the impugned order was made and had completed the course.
Being an HIV patient who obtained admission on merits and completed the course, he sought permission to be enrolled and to have the impugned order set aside so that his results and certificates could be released.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents submitted that the petitioner had violated the information and instructions given to candidates because he was employed elsewhere at the time of application and therefore was not eligible to apply.
They alleged suppression of that fact by the petitioner; had it been disclosed, he would not have been admitted.
Action (withholding the result) was taken after the respondents came to know of the employment information; accordingly, they argued there was no need for judicial interference.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the factual matrix and documentary record and noted the following aspects which formed the basis of its reasoning:

The petitioner was engaged on a contractual/temporary basis as a Counsellor with the Tamil Nadu Networking People with HIV/AIDS from December 2005. The court characterized this post as a "special post" that can only be filled by a person affected with HIV/AIDS.
Given the special nature of the Counsellor post, the court concluded the petitioner could not be equated with persons who are "gainfully employed" in the usual sense; therefore the usual disqualification rationale for employed candidates did not straightforwardly apply.
The court observed that the petitioner had informed the authorities of the Tamil Nadu Networking People with HIV/AIDS and those of Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, at the time of admission, indicating disclosure to relevant authorities and a genuine belief that there was no disqualification to apply.
To demonstrate bona fides, the petitioner had resigned from the counselling position on 21.08.2008.
The impugned order withholding the final semester result was passed pursuant to a show cause notice issued in 2008; by the time the order was passed, the petitioner had completed the course and had cleared the previous two years' examinations.

On the basis of these findings, the court concluded that the circumstances were "peculiar" — specifically because the petitioner was an HIV patient who served as a Counsellor to other patients while pursuing legal education — and that treating his contractual counselling role as equivalent to disqualifying employment was inappropriate in the circumstances. Consequently, the court decided to set aside the impugned order that had withheld the final semester result.

Holding and Implications

The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order withholding the petitioner's final semester result is set aside.

Consequences and immediate effects explicitly ordered by the court:

The respondents are directed to publish the petitioner's results pertaining to the final semester of the three-year Bachelor of Law degree course.
The Writ Petition is disposed of in the petitioner's favour, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed, and there shall be no costs.

The opinion does not set out any broader legal principle or binding precedent beyond the facts of this case; the decision operates as relief to the petitioner on the basis of the particular facts and findings recorded by the court.

Show all summary ...

PRAYER

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in C. No. 3248.Regr/Academic/A2/2009, dated 06.09.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to publish the results of the petitioner pertaining to the final semester of III year degree in Bachelor of Law course held during May, 2009 and also directed to issue Transfer Certificate, Mark Statement, Conduct Certificate, Course Completion Certificate and Provisional Certificate to the petitioner, within a stipulated period as that may be fixed by this Court.

ORDER

This is a Writ Petition filed through Legal Aid. The petitioner herein is an HIV patient. He made an application for admission to one of the Government Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner was given admission for the academic year 2006-2009 for 3 years B.L Degree course.

2. The petitioner was working in a temporary capacity with Tamil Nadu Networking People with HIV/AIDS as a Counselor from December, 2005 onwards. In view of his admission into the Government Law College, the petitioner made a request to the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Networking People with HIV/AIDS seeking permission to continue his service as Peer Counselor. The petitioner was given such permission.

3. The petitioner, thereafter, continued his studies in Madurai Government Law College, apart from acting as a Counselor for the HIV/AIDS patients. A communication was sent by the respondents stating that his admission was irregular, as he was working as an employee, as per the instructions issued to the candidates by Dr. Ambedkar Law University. Therefore, his result of the final semester examination was withheld. Thereafter, the petitioner resigned from the post of Counselor on 21.08.2008 The petitioner gave a reply stating that he was doing an honorary service and he is not in the service of the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. However, the petitioner's result of the final semester examination was withheld by the first respondent on the ground that he was not eligible to study law course, as he was employed elsewhere at the time of making the application. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working in an honorary capacity. He has also resigned his service on 21.08.2008 He has passed in all the examinations till the passing of the order impugned, by which, the result of the final semester examination was withheld. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner, being an HIV patient, having got admission on merits and completed the course, will have to be permitted to get himself enrolled by setting aside the order impugned.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents would submit that admittedly, the petitioner has violated the information and instructions given to the candidates, as the petitioner was employed elsewhere. He was not even eligible to apply and he has suppressed the said fact. Had the said fact been disclosed, he would not have been admitted. Action has been taken subsequently, after coming to know of the said fact. Therefore, no interference needs to be called for.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed the course. By the order impugned, the result of the final semester examination has been withheld. A perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner was working on a contractual basis. He was initially appointed in the month of December, 2005 with the Tamil Nadu Networking People with HIV/AIDS. The said post of Counselor is a special post in the sense it can only be filled up with a person affected with HIV/AIDS. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be equated with any other persons who are otherwise gainfully employed. The petitioner, in fact, has informed the authorities of the Tamil Nadu Networking People with HIV/AIDS and that of the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, even at the time of his admission. He has genuinely believed that there is no disqualification for him to apply. He also showed his bona fides by resigning from the said job in the year 2008. The order impugned has been passed, in pursuant to the show cause notice issued in the year 2008. By the time the order impugned was passed, the petitioner has completed the course. He has cleared the previous two years examinations. By the order impugned, the results of the final semester examination have been withheld.

7. Considering the above said facts, particularly, the peculiar fact, in which, this Court is concerned with an HIV patient, who acted as a Counselor to other patients and who wanted to pursue his knowledge in the field of Education, this Court is of the view that the order impugned will have to be set aside. As discussed above, the petitioner was acted only as a Counselor and his job was to counsel the other HIV/AIDS patients. Therefore, it cannot be equated with an employee of a regular establishment.

8. Hence, considering the above said facts, this Court is inclined to set aside the order impugned and the same is set aside accordingly. Consequently, the respondents are directed to publish the results of the petitioner pertaining to the final semester of three years degree course in Bachelor of Law.

9. The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.