Disposed

K.Ganapathy, v. the Principal Secretary Cum

Madras HC12 Jun 2015WP(MD)/8936/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to appoint him as Village Administrative Officer on compassionate grounds. Court would not direct appointment but directed first respondent to consider petitioner's later representation on merits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed first respondent to consider petitioner's representation on merits and pass appropriate orders within two months.

K.Ganapathy, Vs the Principal Secretary Cum — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.06.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.8936 of 2015

¶3

K.Ganapathy

¶4

... Petitioner Vs.

¶5

1.The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam Chepauk, Chennai.

¶6

2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶7

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶8

4.The Tahsildar, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as Village Administrative Officer on compassionate ground appointment in the light of the recommendation given by the 4^th respondent in his letter Na.Ka.B4/8280/2010 dated 20.08.2010.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Karl Jacop For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, G.A.

¶11

The Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as Village Administrative Officer on compassionate ground appointment in the light of the recommendation given by the 4^th respondent in his letter Na.Ka.B4/8280/2010 dated 20.08.2010.

¶12

2.Even though such a prayer cannot be granted by this Court, however, taking note of the recommendation of the 4^th respondent dated 20.08.2010 and also a proceedings of the District Collector, Sivagangai, dated 29.08.2011, the case of the petitioner may be considered based on his representation dated 28.03.2012.

¶13

Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

¶14

4.In view of the same, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 28.03.2012 on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

¶16

5.With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

1.The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶23

2.The District Collector,

¶24

Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶25

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶26

Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶27

4.The Tahsildar, Devakottai,

¶28

Sivagangai District.

¶29

+1cc to MR.J.KAREL JACOP, Advocate in SR.No. 30641

¶30

+1CC THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, IN SR.NO. 27592

¶31

Nbj

¶32

SR/PRV : 30.06.2015 : 2p/7c

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.8936 of 2015

¶34

12.06.2015

¶35

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

K.Ganapathy, v. the Principal Secretary Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ganapathy, v. the Principal Secretary Cum

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

K.Muthu Vs University Grants Commission

K. Velusamy, Vs the Registrar

Pappathiyammal Pitchai Edl. Vs the Central Board of

Gomathi Hindu Elementary Vs Dr. R. Elangovan

C.Susila Vs the Managing Director

S.Punitha Lucas Vs the District Eudcational