Dismissed

R.M. Murugeswari Jeyasutha, v. the Additional Assistant

Madras HC22 Jun 2015WP(MD)/10128/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider her representation for inclusion in the promotion panel as B.T. Assistant. Court directed respondent to dispose of representation on merits within two months following an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to dispose of petitioner's representation dated 29.04.2015 within two months after affording opportunity for hearing.

R.M. Murugeswari Jeyasutha, Vs the Additional Assistant — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.06.2015

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.10128 of 2015

¶7

R.M.Murugeswari Jeyasutha : Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Office of the Additional Ass.Elementary Educational Office, Avudaiyarkoil,

¶10

Pudukkottai District. : Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to consider petitioner's representation, dated 29.04.2015, for including her name in the panel list for promotion of B.T.Assistant, for English.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.T.S.Venkateshan

¶13

For Respondent :Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The prayer in the Writ Petition is a Writ of Mandamus praying to direct the respondent, to consider petitioner's representation, dated 29.04.2015, for including her name in the panel for promotion of B.T.Assistant, for English.

¶16

2.Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, the learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent and by consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

3.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

4.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 29.04.2015, if not already disposed of, and pass appropriate orders on the same and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. If on a specified date the petitioner does not appear for personal hearing, orders may be passed in accordance with law based on the available records after recording the absence of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Party/Parties.

¶19

¶20

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶21

MPK Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar[Crl side]

¶23

/True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Office of the Additional Ass.Elementary Educational Office, Avudaiyarkoil, Pudukkottai District.

¶27

+1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.32889.

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.10128 of 2015

¶29

Dated:22.06.2015

¶30

2P/3C RPB 10.07.2015

¶31

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

R.M. Murugeswari Jeyasutha, v. the Additional Assistant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.M. Murugeswari Jeyasutha, v. the Additional Assistant

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

V.Chandrakumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Dharmendiran, Vs the District Collector

P. Prakash Vs the Regional Join Registrar of

E.Thangaraj, Vs the Senior Regional Managaer

S. Ravichandran, Vs the Tamilnadu Water Supply

M.Ravindran Mariappan, Vs the Secretary to the Govt.