Disposed

A.Chandraseharapandian v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC27 Apr 2015WP(MD)/5417/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to implement police appointment recommendation was disposed of. The court directed respondents to consider the plea after affording personal hearing and pass appropriate orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider the plea of petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits within two months after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

A.Chandraseharapandian Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 27/4/2015

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

Writ Petition (MD) No.5417 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶5

A.Chandraseharapandian ... Petitioner

¶6

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

¶8

Rep.by its Secretary to Govt., Home (Police III) Department,

¶9

Secretariat, Chennai – 5

¶10

2.The Director General of Police, (L&O), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,

¶11

Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶12

3.The Director General of Police, TNUSRB, Anna Salai,

¶13

Chennai – 600 002

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to implement the recommendation of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, vide his report P1/28056/12, dated 25.5.2012, who has confirmed the original recommendation of the Inspector of Police, Suchindra Circle vide his report P1/28056/2012 N.Ref:344/SDO KK1/2012 dated 18.07.2012, recommending that the petitioner be appointed to the post of SubInspector of Police for the recruitment year 1994-95 under 20% quota meant for departmental candidates on par with 98 persons appointed for the said year 1994-95 in excess of 1100 vacancies originally notified for the said year 1994-95 with all consequential benefits excluding back wages, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶16

For Petitioner ... Mr.R.R.Kannan

¶17

For Respondents ... Mr.S.Kumar, AGP

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2, to implement the recommendation of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

¶20

¶21

Kanyakumari, vide his report P1/28056/12, dated 25.5.2012, who confirmed the original recommendation of the Inspector of Police, Suchindra Circle, vide his report P1/28056/2012 N.Ref:344/SDO KK1/2012, dated 18.07.2012, recommending that the petitioner be appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, for the recruitment year 1994-95, under 20% quota meant for departmental candidates, on par with 98 persons appointed for the said year 1994-95 in excess of 1100 vacancies originally notified for the said year 1994-95, with all consequential benefits excluding back wages, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶22

By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶24

4.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the respondents are directed to consider the plea of the petitioner, whether the recommendation made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, dated 25.05.2012, is applicable and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. If on a specified date the Petitioner does not appear for personal hearing, orders may be passed on merits based on the available records after recording the absence of the party/Parties.

¶25

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

1.The Secretary to Govt.,

¶31

Home (Police III) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 5

¶32

2.The Director General of Police, (L&O),

¶33

Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶34

3.The Director General of Police,

¶35

TNUSRB, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002

¶36

+One cc to Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban, Advocate, SR.No.22807 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.22826 mpk

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RL/6c – 11/5/2015 W.P(MD) No.5417 of 2015

¶38

27/4/2015

A.Chandraseharapandian v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Chandraseharapandian v. 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

V. Chockaiyan, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

A. Rohini, Vs the Chief Engineer

S.Unaice Grana Vs the Joint Director of

M. Mangalam Vs the Director of Elementary

N. Srinivasan Vs Union of India

M. Jeyaraj, Vs the Secretary to Govt.