Dismissed

B.Krishnan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC7 Mar 2014WP(MD)/4052/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing respondents to consider his representation for continuation of service. Bhbhe Court dismissed the petition observing that since the petitioner admitted oral termination without challenging it, no purpose would be served in directing consideration of the representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the termination in the manner known to law.

B.Krishnan Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED:

07.03.2014

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.4052 of 2014

¶8

B.Krishnan : Petitioner

¶9

Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, (Administration) Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶10

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Tirunelveli-2.

¶11

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Vadiveeswaram, Nagercoil. 4.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Isakki Amman Thirukoil, Muppanthal(East) Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.06.2013 seeking continuance of his service as per the appointment order dated 01.07.2011 within a reasonable time prescribed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Saravana Kumar For Respondents :Mr.D.Muruganandham Addl. Govt.Pleader, for R1 & R2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ :Mr.K.Sathiya Singh Standing Counsel for R3& R4

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The present writ petition is filed seeking for Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.06.2013, seeking continuance of his service.

¶17

A perusal of the representation of the petitioner dated 22.06.2013, shows that the petitioner is out of employment from 10.03.2013 onwards and that he was terminated from the service orally. If that is the contention of the petitioner, in my considered view, the prayer sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted, since no purpose would be served in directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner without any challenge of the termination whether it is orally made or by writing. The petitioner admits in the said representation that he was orally terminated. Therefore, the petitioner has to challenge such termination in the manner known to law. By giving such liberty to challenge the termination, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶20

/True Copy/

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

1.The Commissioner,

¶24

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment,

¶25

(Administration) Department,

¶26

Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶27

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶28

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department,Tirunelveli-2.

¶29

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶30

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment

¶31

Department, Vadiveeswaram, Nagercoil.

¶32

4.The Executive Officer,

¶33

Arulmighu Isakki Amman Thirukoil,

¶34

Muppanthal(East)

¶35

Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District

¶36

+One cc to Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, Advocate, SR.No.14502

¶37

+One cc to Mr.M.Saravana Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.14442

¶38

+One cc to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.14897

¶39

gsr

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RL/8c – 21/3/2014

¶41

W.P(MD)No.4052 of 2014 07.03.2014

B.Krishnan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Krishnan v. the Commissioner

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

P.Ganaprakash, Vs the District Collector

M/S. Amirtha Group of Vs the Assistant Provident

Ex.Hav.D. Seeni Vs the Assistant Record Officer

M/S. Babu Enterprises, Vs the Commissioner of

K. Ashalatha, Vs the Chairman

R.Pandi Raj, Vs the Secretary to the