Disposed

G. Shyamala, v. the Director

Madras HC13 Sept 2011WP(MD)/10385/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, selected as a Junior Lecturer under SC category but denied regularization after community verification issues were resolved by the court, filed this writ. The court directed the Director to pass an order on the petitioner's pending representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Director to pass an order on the petitioner's representation within eight weeks.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶3

W.P.(md).No.10385 of 2011

¶4

G.Shyamala : Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Director, Directorate of Teachers Education and Training Institute, DPI, College Road, Chennai. : Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to pass regularization order effecting from 28.08.2007 to the petitioner for the post of Junior Lecturer with all benefits and backwages.

¶8

For Petitioner:Mr.G.Chandrasekar For Respondents:Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate

¶9

ORDER

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected as Junior Lecturer in Government Teacher Training School, Chinna Tharapuram, Karur District under Scheduled Caste category. After conducting an enquiry, the District Community Verification Committee cancelled the petitioner's community certificate by its proceedings Na.Ka.AaNa2/91109/2003 dated 13.04.2007. Consequently, his selection to the post of Junior Lecturer on the basis of Hindu Adi Dravida SW Communal circulation has also been cancelled. Both the orders have been challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.4848 and 4849 of 2007 on the grounds, inter alia that the petitioner is entitled for the social status of Hindu Adidravida Scheduled Caste Community. This court, by an order dated 31.08.2007, has set aside both orders and further directed the Teachers Recruitment Board to act in pursuance of the selection of the petitioner for the post of Junior Lecturer, treating him as a candidate belonging to scheduled caste.

¶11

2.It is the further contention of the petitioner that despite the said direction, he was not permitted to join the duty by the respondent. Hence he was constrained to file a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.283 of 2008. On receipt of notice, he was permitted to join duty on 03.08.2010 and recording the same, the contempt petition was closed.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.It is also the contention of the petitioner that though

¶13

¶14

the candidates, who were selected along with him, were regularised on 28.08.2007, the order of regularisation in respect of the petitioner has not been passed. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has sent a representation to the respondent on 17.08.2011, which has not been disposed of so far and hence the present writ petition for a mandamus.

¶15

4.Though, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the respondent to regularise his services from 28.08.2007 in the post of Junior Lecturer with all monetary benefits, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is suffice that a direction is issued to the Director, Directorate of Teachers Education and Training Institute, Chennai to pass orders on the abovesaid representation.

¶16

5.The above said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.

¶17

6.Considering the limited request, a mere direction is issued to the Director, Directorate of Teachers Education and Training Institute, Chennai, respondent herein to pass orders on the representation dated 17.08.2011 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said authority is directed to act on the basis of the orders passed by this Court.

¶18

7.This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶20

/True Copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

The Director,

¶24

Directorate of Teachers Education and Training Institute,

¶25

DPI, College Road, Chennai.

¶26

+one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 31389

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.10385 of 2011 13.09.2011

¶28

¶29

SMA/29.9.2011/3C/2P

¶30

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

G. Shyamala, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Shyamala, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Stephen Isaac Sundaram, Vs the District Collector

S. Irudayaraj Vs the District Collector

National Pulses Research Vs the Regional Provident Fund

T. Jebaraj, S/O.Thankamoni, Vs the District Collector

P. Mutharasu Vs the Joint Director of

R. Arumugam, Vs the District Collector