Disposed

S.Thenmozhi, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC10 Mar 2015WP(MD)/3305/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking appointment as a Post Graduate Assistant. The Court directed the appointing authority to consider a pending representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the representation dated 28.02.2015 and pass orders on merits within six weeks.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.03.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3305 of 2015 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶7

S.Thenmozhi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education,

¶10

Fort St.George,

¶11

Chennai-09.

¶12

The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-06.

¶13

The Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board,

¶14

EVK Sampath Maligai,

¶15

DPI Compound, College Road,

¶16

Chennai-06. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2, to appoint the petitioner in the post of Post Graduate Assistant in English within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Louis For M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both the parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶21

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶22

The petitioner is seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and

¶23

2 to appoint her in the post of Post Graduate Assistant in English.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that even though her name was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ provisionally included for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistants, she was not given appointment so far, by stating that, her

¶25

¶26

eligibility will be decided by the appointing authority.

¶27

According to the petitioner, the appointing authority has not passed any order so far. Hence, she made a representation on 28.02.2015, to the second respondent, who is the appointing authority. The said representation is said to be still pending.

¶28

Therefore without expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner, I only direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.02.2015 and pass orders on the same on merits in accordance with law within a period of six weeks.

¶29

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶32

/True Copy/

¶33

Sub- Assistant Registrar TO 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-09. 2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-06. 3. The Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-06.

¶34

+1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 11480 +1cc to Mr.t.LAJAPATHIROY, Advocate in SR.No. 11632 Sm:24.03.2015:2P/6C: W.P.(MD)No.3305 of 2015 10.03.2015

¶35

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

S.Thenmozhi, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Thenmozhi, 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

S.Dineshkumar, Vs the Secretary to State

M.Shunmugam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V. Sandal Muthuraj Vs the District Collector Cum

R. Rajaram, Vs the Director General

Vv. Mineral Vs the Commissioner of Central

A.Paulraj, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by