Disposed

Mallika v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Jul 2015WP(MD)/10542/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Murasoli Bench, disposed of a writ petition filed by Mallika seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to consider her objection to a promotion order. The court directed the first respondent to dispose of the objection with an opportunity of hearing within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's objection to the promotion within one month after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Mallika Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.07.2015

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.10542 of 2015

¶7

Mallika :Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

¶10

2.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Thogaimalai, Karur District. : Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to consider the objection of the petitioner dated 08.05.2015, as forwarded by the second respondent through its proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1157/2013, dated 12.05.2015, before ordering promotion to the post of Block Development Officer in terms of panel published in NA.KA.PA.VA1/815/2015, dated 16.04.2015.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.K.Govindarajan

¶13

For Respondents :Mr.R.Velmurugan Government Advocate

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus praying to direct the first respondent to consider the objection of the petitioner dated 08.05.2015, as forwarded by the second respondent through its proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1157/2013, dated 12.05.2015, before ordering promotion to the post of Block Development Officer in terms of panel published in NA.KA.PA.VA1/815/2015, dated 16.04.2015.

¶16

2.Mr.R.Velmurugan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 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 objection of the petitioner is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

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

¶19

4.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the objection of the petitioner, dated 08.05.2015, if not already disposed of, and pass appropriate orders on the same and in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of

¶20

¶21

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 Party/Parties. The persons, who are likely to be affected are also to be heard before any final decision is to be taken.

¶22

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

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

¶29

2.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Thogaimalai,

¶30

Karur District.

¶31

+1cc to M/S.K.Govindarajan, Advocate in SR.No 36289

¶32

+1cc to M/S. R.Velmurugan, Advocate in SR.No 36805

¶33

+1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 36552.

¶34

TS/09.07.2015/2P -6C

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.10542 of 2015

¶36

06.07.2015

¶37

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

Mallika v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallika 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

R. Mala, Vs the Director of School

Dr.a. Thandeeswaran, Vs the Director

Ganesan Vs the Senior Regional Manager

S.Amuthavalli Vs the Director of Panchayats

Managing Trustee Cum Vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar

P.Jeyarani Vs the Director of Social