Dismissed

Christal Mary, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC15 Jul 2015WP(MD)/11657/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to conduct the Teacher Eligibility Test. The Court held that a writ cannot be issued without a representation. The petitioner is directed to make a representation to the second respondent.

What did the court decide?

No costs. The petitioner is directed to make a representation to the second respondent.

Christal Mary, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 15.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.11657 of 2015

¶7

Christal Mary ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, represented by its Member Secretary, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents (The second respondent is impleaded as respondent by order of this Court dated 15.07.2015)

¶11

PRAYER:

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent herein to conduct “Teacher Eligibility Test” forthwith by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2015.

¶13

For Petitioner ... Mr.E.V.N.Siva For Respondents ... Mr.V.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent herein to conduct “Teacher Eligibility Test” forthwith by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2015.

¶16

2.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by

¶18

¶19

the learned Additional Government Pleader that there is no representation sent by the petitioner to the second respondent.

¶20

4.In view of the above, without any demand, a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued. However,it is open to the petitioner to make necessary representation to the second respondent and if any representation is made by the petitioner, it is open to the second respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶21

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

¶22

Assistant Registrar(writ)

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶27

2.The Member Secretary,

¶28

Teachers Recruitment Board,

¶29

EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006

¶30

+1 CC TO MR.E.V.N.Siva,Advocate, SR NO:39077/15

¶31

+1 CC TO SPL.GOVT.PLEADER, SR NO:39479/15

¶32

ssl

¶33

jam:29.7.2015/2p-5C

¶34

Writ Petition (MD) No.11657 of 2015 15.07.2015

¶35

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

Christal Mary, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Christal Mary, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Jeyaraj, Vs the Commissioner

A.Ninaiva, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

D.Kumar Vs the District Collector

P. Gunasekaran, Vs the Deputy General Manager

M/s. Polaris Consulting Vs The Joint Commissioner of

M/s. D.V.R. Freight Forwarders Vs The Commissioner of Customs