V KAMALAM Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to pay adequate compensation of Rs.30 lakhs for the deliberate delay due to vindictive motive in denying the second provisional certificate and degree certificate and also for issuing an incomplete transfer certificate and also seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take an action against the illegal acts done by respondents 4 and 5.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition came up on 26.04.2012, this court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice for the first respondent. For second respondent, Ms.Narmada Sampath, learned Standing Counsel took notice. In respect of respondents 3,4 and 5, the petitioner was directed to issue private notice. Accordingly, on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, Mr.E.Shanmugavelu, learned counsel appeared. He also filed a counter affidavit dated 13.6.2012. On behalf of the Homeopathy Medical council Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned counsel appeared and also produced a written remarks signed by the Registrar of the council dated 12.6.2012.

(3.) THE petitioner met the fifth respondent for issuance of the transfer certificate. They had issued the transfer certificate on 4.4.2011. In the transfer certificate, all entries were not filled up. For example, against the column for conduct, it was left blank and against the column for certification of full payment of fees and other emoluments, it was also left blank inspite of collecting the entire amount and without dues. These blanks were given deliberately and intended to cause damage to future studies and career opportunity of the petitioner. The petitioner met the fifth respondent and requested him to issue a fresh transfer certificate. The fifth respondent had advised the petitioner to wait until degree certificate is received from the university, sot that they will issue a fresh transfer certificate to her along with the degree certificate. Even the degree certificate was not given to her after the convocation was over during November 2011. She made a representation under the Right to Information Act. The second respondent on 08.03.2012 had informed her that her name was included in the convocation of the University held on 03.11.2011 under the category of in absentia and the degree certificate was dispatched to the fourth respondent college on 01.12.2011.