P MURUGAN Vs. DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGE EDUCATION CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these writ petitions, petitioners seek issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the interview for the B.Ed. course run by the 1st respondent in the 2nd Respondent INstitute, viz., INstitute of Advanced Study in Education at Saidapet, Chennai, for the year 1998-99.

(2.) IN the affidavit in support of the petitioner, it is stated that after completing qualifying examinations, petitioners applied for B.Ed. course conducted by the first respondent at the INstitute of Advanced Study in Education, and the petitioners were asked to attend an interview on 21.9.1998 at 9.30 a.m. with all original certificates. The letter dated 16.9.1998 was received by the petitioners only on 21.9.1998 making it impossible for them to attend the interview. The petitioners started to Chennai immediately after receiving the said letter and reached Chennai on 22.9.1998. They met the second respondent who informed them about their helplessness since their absence cannot be excused for the said reason and refused to admit them. It is the case of the petitioners that they are not responsible for the postal delay and they should have been admitted in the course. They seek the assistance of the court to compel the respondents to admit them in the course.

(3.) IN the same volume, in R.Vinothkumar v. Secretary, Selection Committee R.Vinothkumar v. Secretary, Selection Committee R.Vinothkumar v. Secretary, Selection Committee , (1995)1 L.W. 351 a Full Bench of this Court also had an occasion to consider the same question. IN para. 3 of the judgment, Justice Raju (as he then was) held thus: