Disposed

M. Shanthi, v. the Director

Madras HC8 Sept 2011WP(MD)/10231/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Madurai Bench disposed of a writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits. It directed the District Employment Officer to consider the petitioner’s representation regarding the restoration of her name in the live register and the application of a revised seniority date.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.08.2011 and pass appropriate orders on merits within four weeks.

M. Shanthi, Vs the Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.09.2011

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶5

W.P.(MD).No.10231 of 2011

M.Shanthi

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai-32.

¶10

2.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Pudukkottai. : Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to restore the name of the petitioner in the live register of the second respondent employment exchange with the same seniority dated 09.04.1999, in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court dated 11.10.2007, in Review Application Nos.14 and 15 of 2007 and further, direct the second respondent to sponsor the petitioner's name against existing vacancies as per the seniority dated 09.04.1999 in the next selection.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sridharan

¶13

For Respondents: Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen,Additional Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Though the petitioner has sought for a Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to restore her name in the live register of the second respondent Employment Exchange with the same seniority dated 09.04.1999, in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court dated 11.10.2007, in Review Application Nos.14 and 15 of 2007 and further, direct the second respondent to sponsor her name against existing vacancies, as per the seniority dated 09.04.1999 in the next selection, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice, if a direction is issued to the respondents to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 09.08.2011, said to have been acknowledged.

¶16

Considering the limited request, Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader was put on notice and heard. He submitted that sufficient time may be granted to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.08.2011. His submission is placed on record.

¶17

Having regard to the limited request, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or recording any finding as to whether https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Sivakumari, R. v. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam reported in 2007(5) CTC 561, a direction is

¶18

¶19

issued to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.08.2011 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While doing so, the second respondent is also directed to consider the number of eligible candidates, who have already registered in the live register of the District Employment Office, Pudukkottai.

¶20

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶21

¶22

ASST REGISTRAR ( CRL SIDE )

/TRUE COPY/

SUB ASST REGISTRAR

SML

1.The Director, Directorate of Employment and Training,

¶28

Guindy, Chennai-32.

¶29

2.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Pudukkottai.

¶30

DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:15::

¶31

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.10231 of 2011 Dated:- 08.09.2011

¶32

2P:3C::

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Shanthi, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Shanthi, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Renganathan, Vs the Deputy Collector /

Dharmaraj Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S. Nallamuthu, Vs the Director of Elementary

R. Gandhi, S/O.a.M.Ramiah, Vs the Secretary to Government

S. Gopi, Vs the District Collector

V. Sakthivel Vs Principal Secretary to Govt.