Disposed

M.Chandranageswara Rao, v. The Commisisoner

Madras HC19 Mar 2015WP/3010/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider his representation for promotion exemption under G.O.Ms.No.1120. The court directed the respondent to decide the matter on merits within three months and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation on merits under G.O.Ms.No.1120 within three months.

M.Chandranageswara Rao, Vs The Commisisoner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.03.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.3010 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

M.Chandranageswara Rao ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1.The Commissioner
T.N.Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection
Department, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
T.N.Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection
Department, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Deputy Commissioner,
T.N.Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection
Department, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005. ...Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's name and promote the petitioner as Assistant by granting exemption from passing departmental examination as per G.O.Ms.No.1120 P & AR Department dated 30.10.1984.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi For Respondent : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi Addl. Government Pleader

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant through Employment Exchange. He joined service in 2003. The petitioner was required to pass departmental test within a period of five years. He made five attempts. However, he was not successful. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to give him relaxation on the basis of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1120 P & AR Department dated 30.10.1984. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation was submitted on 07.10.2014. However, there was no

¶12

follow up action taken by the first respondent, resulting in filing this writ petition.

¶13

The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 07.10.2014 submitted by the petitioner on merits and as per law and in the light of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1120 P & AR Department, dated 30.10.1984. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Commissioner
T.N.Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection
Department, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
T.N.Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection
Department, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Deputy Commissioner,
T.N.Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection
Department, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No15860
1 cc to Mr..V.R.Annagandhi ,Advocate, SR.No.15592/15
W.P.No.3010 of 2015
ca(co)
pmk.7.4.2015

¶16

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

M.Chandranageswara Rao, v. The Commisisoner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Chandranageswara Rao, v. The Commisisoner

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.Sathyasanthi,W/o.M.Thangavel Vs The Registrar /President

Mr.S.K.Wellington Vs the District Elementary

J.Malliga, Vs The Chief Conservator of

T.Manimala Vs Sabitha

A.Padmavathy Vs Sabitha

S.Malathy, Vs The Director of Medical and