Disposed

P.Elamvazhudhi, v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Sept 2016WP/12832/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a physically challenged person, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Employment Officer to consider his representation for sponsorship under the physically challenged quota. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass orders within six weeks without expressing an opinion on the petitioner's age eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

P.Elamvazhudhi, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.09.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.12832 of 2015

¶6

P.Elamvazhudhi .. Petitioner

¶7

1.The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
2.The District Employment Officer,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second
respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated
16.3.2015.

¶8

For petitioner : Mr.R.Jayapakash For Respondents: Mr.S.Gunasekaran, Addl.Govt.Pleader ORDER

¶9

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.3.2015.

¶10

The petitioner is a physically challenged person. He passed Higher Secondary Course in the year 1991 and has registered his name for employment with the second respondent on 17.5.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that his juniors had been sponsored by the second respondent and they have also been appointed under the physically challenged person's quota whereas the petitioner's name has not been sponsored for appointment till date. The petitioner is having experience as xerox operator. As there are several posts of Xerox Operator in different departments lying vacant in Villupuram District, he sent a representation to the respondent on 16.3.2015 but nothing has been done so far. Hence the present writ petition.

¶11

Opposing the Writ Petition, the second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, had

¶12

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

¶13

notified two vacancies of Xerox Operator on 3.7.2014. The maximum age limit for BC is 32 years as on 1.1.2014. The petitioner had crossed the maximum age limit of 42 years (with 10 years relaxation for differently able person) on 8.7.2013 itself. Hence, his his name could not be sponsored.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶15

Without going into the merits of the matter, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.3.2015 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that if the petitioner is eligible for any other vacancy, his name may be sponsored as per law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the contention of the writ petitioner.

¶16

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
asvm
To
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
2.The District Employment Officer,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
+ 1 cc to Mr.R.Jayapakash, Advocate SR.53601
+ 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.53448
W.P.No.12832 of 2015
SKV(CO)
Eu 07/15/16

¶17

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

P.Elamvazhudhi, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Elamvazhudhi, v. The District Collector

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

R.Seetha Vs The State of Tamilnadu

D.Nandhagopal, Vs The Secretary to Government

Nagaraj. K Vs The Chief Engineer/Personnel

V.Krishnamoorthy, Vs The Secretary

C.Velu, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

C.Gopal Vs The Commissioner