Disposed

Dr. K.Aruna, Assistant Surgeon v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Mar 2015WP(MD)/3089/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging the non-issuance of call letters for medical officers to participate in intra-directorate transfer counselling. The court disposed of the petitions after the respondent's counsel undertook to permit petitioners to attend and publish vacancy details.

What did the court decide?

Respondents permitted to permit petitioners to participate in transfer counselling and publish consolidated vacancy list.

Dr. K.Aruna, Assistant Surgeon Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.03.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)Nos.3089 to 3091 of 2015 and M.P(MD)Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2015 K.Aruna ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.3089/2015 P.Hemalatha ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.3090/2015 R.Subbulakshmi ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.3091/2015 Vs.

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶8

2.The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai – 10. ... Respondents in all W.P's

¶9

COMMON Prayer:- Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from conducting Intra-Directorate (Intra-DME) transfer counselling for existing 10(a)(i) Doctors/Non Service Post Graduates (working for bond period) and Medical Officers selected by the Medical Recruitment Board to fill up the vacancies of Medical Officers in the cadre of Tutors/Senior Residents/Assistant Professors etc., in various Medical College and Hospitals in pursuance of the circular in Ref.No.91231/E3/1/2014-3 issued by the 2^nd respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to conduct transfer counselling for the service P.G Degree candidates before conducting counselling for existing 10(a)(i) Doctors/Non Service Post Graduates (Working for bond period) and Medical Officers selected by the Medical Recruitment Board as has been followed till last year and pass such further or other orders.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss

¶12

Government Advocate COMMON ORDER

¶13

All these three Writ Petitions are filed seeking for a Mandamus to forbear the respondents from conducting Intra-Directorate (Intra-DME) transfer counselling for existing 10(a)(i) Doctors/Non Service Post Graduates (working for bond period) and Medical Officers selected by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Medical Recruitment Board to fill up the vacancies of Medical Officers in the cadre of Tutors/Senior Residents/Assistant Professors etc., in various

¶14

¶15

Medical College and Hospitals in pursuance of the circular in Ref.No.91231/E3/1/2014-3 issued by the 2^nd respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to conduct transfer counselling for the service P.G Degree candidates before conducting counselling for existing 10(a)(i) Doctors/Non Service Post Graduates (Working for bond period) and Medical Officers selected by the Medical Recruitment Board as has been followed till last year.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they are entitled to take part in the counselling, they are not issued with call letters.

¶17

Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have not published the consolidated list of vacancies in the official Website of the Health Department.

¶18

These matters were moved by way of lunch motion, in view of the urgency involved in these matters, since the counselling is to take place tomorrow ie., 06.03.2015. This Court, while granting permission to move these matters by way of lunch motion, directed the counsel for the petitioners to serve papers on the concerned Government Advocate, who inturn was directed to get instruction by 02.15 p.m. today.

¶19

Mr.K.P.Krishnadoass, learned Government Advocate immediately taken steps and got instruction and submitted before this Court that all the three writ petitioners will be permitted to take part in the counselling tomorrow ie., 06.03.2015. He further submitted that the consolidated vacancy position will also be published in the public notification in the respective counselling centres.

¶20

Considering the above stated submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioners does not survive any more. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by recording the undertaking given by the learned Government Advocate and also by directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to take part in the counselling tomorrow ie., 06.03.2015. This Court records its appreciation on the learned Government Advocate in getting the timely instruction from the respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

sub Assistant Registrar(c.s)

¶25

¶26

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶27

Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai – 10. +3cc to M/S. Ajmal Associates, Advocate in SR.No. 10546 to 10547 TS/05.03.2015/2P-6C

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)Nos.3089 to 3091 of 2015 05.03.2015

Dr. K.Aruna, Assistant Surgeon v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. K.Aruna, Assistant Surgeon 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Narayanan Vs the Sercretary to Government

Sivasubramanian, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Meera Maideen Vs the Accountant General of

S. Thiagaraja Vs Teh State of Tamilnadu

K. Ramakrishnan, Vs the Managing Director

S. Ramalakshmi, Vs the Accountant General