D S RAVINDRADOSS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows: '. . . . . to issue a writ or order or direction and in particular a writ of certiorari calling upon the production of the order relating to the notice undated made in DIPR/ms/92 Ext. passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the 1st respondent, quash the same and pass. . . . .'

(2.) THE petitioner is the father of a student studying in ii year M. B. B. S. in the third respondent college. Obviously, the petitioner has admitted his daughter when the college was under the control of the Government.

(3.) I have given my careful consideration to the arguments of Mr. Senthilnathan , learned counsel for the petitioner. I may say immdiately that I am not convinced that this is not a matter to be entertained in a writ petition by exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is true that the third respondent college was managed by the Government when the petitioner's daughter was admitted into the college. However, it seems the college has been handed over to the Trust again by the present Government when a Division Bench of this Court has held that the taking over of the college by the Government is bad in law. The result is the order of the Division Bench of this Court has got to be obeyed by the State Government and what all the State Government has done is the implementation of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. As I have already stated that it is nowhere alleged in the affidavit that any appeal has been filed against the order of the Division Bench except a statement made before this Court by the learned counsel that an appeal is being filed before the Apex Court of the land against the order of the Division Bench of this Court, Maybe to, As it is the order of the Division Bench of this Court is binding on me, which has held that the taking over of the college by the Government in 1989 is bad inlaw , and as such the Government has got to comply with the order of the Division Bench of this Court, which the Government it seems has now complied with by handing over the college to the Trust, that cannot bea subject-matter before this Court, and if any order is passed by this Court, it will amount to reviewing of the order of the Division Bench of this Court. It cannot be done by this Court. The notice which is shown before me, is an announcement made by the Minister for Health in the interests of the students and parents as I can sec from the notice. If the students or parents are aggrieved that the college has been handed over to a private Management and if they want to continue their studies they are given an option to joint in a government Medical College and if they want to continue in the same college, i. e. Sri Ramachandr a Medical College they would pay only the fees applicable in other Government Colleges and this has been accepted by the Management. As such, the Government has come out with a notification just to sort out the issue by way of compromise that such of those medical students, who joined SriRamachandra Medical College in 1990-91 and 1991-92 may give it in writing to the second respondent before 4. 9. 1992 their application seeking such transfer to Government Medical colleges. Similarly, students in other medical colleges, who seek transfer to Sri Ramachandra Medical College may also apply to the second respondent. It is made clear in the announcement itself that the requests would be processed as per the guidelines of Medical council of India. So, from the notice it is very clear that the Government in the interests of the student community has come out with this statement, in my view correctly, that if they want to continue their studies in a private college, they need not pay extra fees to the management. So also if the students do not want to continue their studies in the private college, they can get themselves transferred to any Government Medical College In my view, this statement cannot be said to "be mal a fide or arbitrary. I am unable to accept what Mr. S. Senthilnathan means that principles of natural justice has been violated. It is well settled that principles of natural justice cannot be put into straight jacket formula and principle is flexible. It varies from case to case and depends upon the facts and circumstnaces of each case, nature of right which may be affected. Here is a case where in the matter of taking over of a college by private management, an amicable solution has been given by the State Government and it is for the petitioner either to accept it or reject it. I do not think that it can give rise to a cause of action to come before this Court, especially by invoking the extroarodinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is true that right to education is held to be a fundamental right. But 1 do not think that this fundamental right can be stretched to the extent as a right to study in a private college or Government college. So, on the simple ground that the petitioner has no locus standi in the sense that he has no right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. That apart, the petitioner alleges in the affidavit that the parents have formed an Association and it is an unregistered association, but it has been held by this Court repeatedly that an unregistered association cannot maintain a writ petition.