Disposed

R. Chelladurai, v. the Director

Madras HC9 Feb 2015WP(MD)/13747/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking promotion as Radiology Assistant based on seniority. The Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's dated representation and decide on merits within twelve weeks, disposing of the petition without expressing views on the claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Second Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.12.2013 and pass appropriate orders on merits within twelve weeks.

R. Chelladurai, Vs the Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.02.2015 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶3

Writ Petition (MD) No.13747 of 2014

¶4

R.Chelladurai ... Petitioner Vs.

¶5

1.The Director, Kilpack Medical College, chennai 10.

¶6

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9. ( cause title of R1&2 are amended as per order dated 09.02.2015 in MP(MD)No.1 of 2014)

¶7

3.The Joint Director, Government Hexpolder Hospital, Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Radiology Assistant taking into account of the petitioner's qualification and seniority and by considering petitioner's representation dated 30.12.2013.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.R.Ananda Raj, Government Advocate.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents to promote him as Radiology Assistant taking into account of his qualification and seniority.

¶12

2.It appears that the petitioner has already made a representation on 30.12.2013 seeking for such promotion. Therefore, it is for the second respondent to consider the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation of the petitioner and decide the same on merits. This Court is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner as of now.

¶13

¶14

3.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of only with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.12.2013 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶16

/True Copy/

¶17

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶18

¶19

1.The Director, Kilpack Medical College, chennai 10. 2.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9. 3.The Joint Director, Government Hexpolder Hospital, Periyakulam, Theni District. +One cc to M/s.Ajmal Associates, Advocate, SR.No.5920 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.Nos.6015&6650 sms RL/7c – 24/2/2015 Writ Petition (MD) No.13747 of 2014

¶20

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

¶21

09.02.2015

R. Chelladurai, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Chelladurai, v. the Director

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. Vijayaraghavan Vs the Joint Registrar/Managing

K.Chockkalingam Vs the Commissioner of Municipal

M.C.Jeyapandian Vs the Management of

D.Joseph Dhanapaul Vs the Director of School

P. Anandaraman Vs Recovery Officer

Praveen Kumar Vs the Commissioner of