S.Krishnaveni v. The Dean and Chairman (Pg Admissions)

ORDER The present writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the Post Graduation admission process conducted by the first respondent University pursuant to her online application dated 07.11.2025.

¶2According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the petitioner has undergone a four year UG decree course in the third respondent University which is a deemed University and got B.Sc.(Agri) degree. According to him, the third respondent institution is accredited to ICAR from September 2024 to 25.09.2029. The petitioner has undertaken the course in the third respondent University in the academic year between 2021-2025.

¶3According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, as per clause

6.1 of the brochure for PG admission conducted by the first respondent University, a candidate from the private college can apply for PG admission only if the candidate has cleared ICAR examination. However, if the candidate has undergone UG course in ICAR accredited institution, they can also apply. According to him, the third respondent institution being an ICAR aggregated institution, she is eligible to apply. Accordingly, though she had made an application, she has not received a hall ticket. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶4Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the third respondent University is only an accredited institution and not an ICAR institution. Therefore, it should be deemed only to be a private college as far as the PG admission to the first respondent University is concerned. Admittedly, the petitioner has not cleared ICAR examination. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not qualified as per the brochure. Without challenging the eligibility criteria as per the brochure, the present writ petition for a mandamus is not maintainable.

¶5I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶6The facts narrated above will clearly indicate that the petitioner has undergone her UG decree in B.Sc.(Agri) from the deemed University. It is not an institution run by the ICAR. It is only accredited to ICAR. Therefore, it does not fall within the eligible criteria under clause 6.1. That apart, the petitioner having not cleared ICAR examination, would not be eligible to apply for the PG admission because she has undertaken UG decree in a private college.

¶7In view of the above said facts, the petitioner having not challenged the eligibility criteria, would not be entitled to seek a mandamus to appear for the entrance examination to be conducted on 07.12.2025.

¶8With the above said observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

04.12.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR R.VIJAYAKUMAR

, J.

RJR W.P.(MD)No.35096 of 2025

04.12.2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.12.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.35096 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.27810 & 27811 of 2025 S.Krishnaveni ...Petitioner Vs 1. The Dean and Chairman (PG Admissions), School of Post Graduate Studies(SPGS), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore - 641 003. 2. The Dean, Agricultural College and Research Institute, Madurai - 625 104. 3. The Dean, Kalasalingam School of Agriculture and Horticulture, Kalasalingam University, Krishnankovil, Virudhunagar District - 626 126. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to permit the Petitioner to participate in the Post Graduation admission process for admission in Masters in Agriculture (Entomology) course and consequently grant her admission in the said course if she is otherwise eligible in pursuant to her online application dated 07.11.2025 bearing application NoTNAUPGS/MS/2025/000571. For Petitioner : M/s.K.Jeyamohan For Respondents : M/s.A.Thirumurthy Standing Counsel for R1 and R2 * * *