Disposed

R.Haridoss, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC10 Feb 2015WP(MD)/16429/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ of Mandamus directing the District Employment Officer to sponsor the petitioner for a government post. The Court disposed of the petition directing the officer to consider the petitioner's land acquisition certificate and take appropriate steps without further delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th respondent to consider the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and take appropriate steps within three months.

R.Haridoss, Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.02.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.16429 of 2014

R.Haridoss

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, State Transport Corporation, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., No.27 Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam Tanjore District. 3.The District Collector O/o. The District Collector Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram 5.The District Employment Officer, O/o. The District Employment Officer, Ramanathapuram 6.The Tahsildar(Special) Paramakudi Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.4 to issue “Genuineness Certificate” to the respondent No.5 in respect of petitioner's LA (Land Acquisition) certificate issued by the respondent No.6 dated 27.10.2010 and consequently direct the respondent No.5 to sponsor the name of the petitioner to the respondent No.2 as per the said “Genuineness Certificate” for the post of driver or any other post by calculating seniority from the date of land acquisition proceeding i.e. 27.10.2010 and consider his appointment as per the G.O.Ms.No.188 Personal and Administrative Department dated 28.12.1976. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Petitioner

For Respondents

for R2

: Mr.S.Louis for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy :

¶18

Mr.D.Muruganandham for R1,3 to 6 Addl. Government Pleader Mr.D.Sivaraman

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The above writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondent No.4 to issue “Genuineness Certificate” to the respondent No.5 in respect of petitioner's LA (Land Acquisition) certificate issued by the respondent No.6 dated 27.10.2010 and consequently direct the respondent No.5 to sponsor the name of the petitioner to the respondent No.2 as per the said “Genuineness Certificate” for the post of driver or any other post by calculating seniority from the date of land acquisition proceeding i.e. 27.10.2010 and consider his appointment as per the G.O.Ms.No.188 Personal and Administrative Department dated 28.12.1976.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 3 to 6.

¶22

It is seen that the petitioner claims preferential category in the public employment in respect of persons whose land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for public purpose. It is also seen that the 6^th respondent has issued a certificate on 27.10.2010 in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though such certificate was issued by the 6^th respondent as early as on 27.10.2010, the 5^th respondent has not sponsored the petitioner's name under such preferential category. Therefore, he approached this Court with the relief as stated supra.

¶23

Needless to say that once such certificate is issued and produced before the 5^th respondent, it is for the 5^th respondent to consider the said certificate and give registration of the petitioner under the preferential category, if the 5^th respondent is not having any doubt about the genuineness of the certificate. On the other hand, if there is any doubt in the mind of the 5^th respondent with regard to genuineness of such certificate, it is for him to seek for verification of such certificate. In either way, the 5^th respondent has to act immediately without keeping the matter pending for a long time.

¶24

5.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 5^th respondent to consider the certificate issued by the 5^th respondent in favour of the petitioner and take appropriate steps in accordance with law without loss of further time, at any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶27

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

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

RR To

¶31

1.The Principal Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, State Transport Corporation,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
No.27 Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam
Tanjore District.
3.The District Collector
O/o. The District Collector Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram
5.The District Employment Officer, O/o. The District Employment Officer,
Ramanathapuram
6.The Tahsildar(Special) Paramakudi Ramanathapuram District.
+1cc to MR.D.SIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE IN SR NO. 6080
+2cc to Special Government Pleader Sr NOS.6256 & 6252
W.P.(MD) No.16429 of 2014
10.02.2015
rg.19.02.2015 3p.1Oc.

¶32

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

R.Haridoss, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Haridoss, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Joseph Dhanapaul Vs the Director of School

R. Chelladurai, Vs the Director

P. Anandaraman Vs Recovery Officer

D.Muniasamy Vs the Principal Secretary

K.Subbiah Pandi Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M. Shylaja, Vs the Director of Collegiate