Dismissed

Deesan Amose v. the District Collector

Madras HC16 Sept 2011WP(MD)/10562/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-issuance of attendance register to an appointed Office Assistant. The court held that mandamus cannot be issued merely because immediate action was not taken on a representation without giving authorities sufficient time to verify the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus was dismissed. Connected M.P.No. 1 of 2011 was also dismissed. No costs.

Deesan Amose Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.09.2011

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition (MD)No.10562 of 2011

¶7

Deesan Amose ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶10

2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

3.The Executive Officer, Thiruparappu Selection Grade, Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent NO.3 from preventing the petitioner to render his service as the Office Assistant at Thiruparappu Selection Grade Town Panchayat by signing the attendance register in pursuance to the appointment order in Na.Ka.No.A1-125/2010, dated 25.08.2011.

¶13

For petitioner ... Mr.S.Rajasekar

¶14

For respondent ... Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Petitioner, has sought for a mandamus forbearing the respondent No.3 from preventing the petitioner from discharging his duties as Office Assistant, at Thiruparappu Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District. It is the case of the petitioner pursuant to a call letter dated 16.08.2011 issued by the Executive Officer, Thiruparappu Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District, an interview was conducted on 24.08.2011, for selection to the post of Office Assistant, the petitioner participated in the said interview and the Executive officer, third respondent, issued an order of appointment to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not even permitted to sign the attendance register and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 13.09.2011 to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil, the first respondent herein. Sofar no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner has come forward https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the present writ petition for a mandamus.

¶17

¶18

2.Though the petitioner has contended that despite the order of appointment, dated 25.08.2011, issued by the Executive Officer, Thiruparappu Selection Grade Town Panchayat, third respondent, the petitioner has not been permitted to sign the attendance register and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has sent a representation to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, the first respondent herein, on 13.09.2011, it is evident that even without waiting for the said authority to take appropriate action, on the representation, he has rushed to this court and filed the present writ petition on 14.09.2011; the next day itself. Even assuming that the representation dated 13.09.2011 has reached the office of the first respondent, some time is required to verify the complaint of not permitting him to sign the attendance register. Mandamus, can be issued only if there is a failure on the part of the respondents, in discharging their duties.

¶19

3.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner, has prayed for adjournment by one week, this Court is not inclined to accept the said request, for the reason, that writ petitions cannot be entertained on the sole ground that action is not taken immediately, and that too, giving sufficient time to the authorities to act on the representation.

¶20

4.In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S)

¶23

¶24

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶25

2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶26

3.The Executive Officer, Thiruparappu Selection Grade, Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District.

¶27

- 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.32065 + 1 cc to M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR No.31945

¶28

Writ Petition(MD)No.10562 of 2011

¶29

16.09.2011

¶30

vs RJ/11.10.11 2p/6c

¶31

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

Deesan Amose v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deesan Amose v. the District Collector

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

B. Ramadevi Vs the State Government

S. Arokiya Antony Majeela, Vs the Joint Director of School

R. Surulimuthu, S/O.Rasu, Vs the District Collector

Jeevan Polytechnic College Vs the Appeal Committee

Mrs.M. Indira Vs the Director of Public

M. Balakumar, Vs the District Collector