Allowed

P.Sangeetha, v. The Commissioner of

Madras HC12 Jul 2016WP/22057/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court, by consent, disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Social Welfare to decide a pending appeal regarding the petitioner's appointment as a Cook Assistant. The Court directed expedient and fair consideration of the appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the pending appeal filed by the petitioner on 10.03.2016 and pass appropriate orders expeditiously after issuing notice and hearing both parties.

P.Sangeetha, Vs The Commissioner of — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :12.07.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P.No.22057 of 2016

¶6

P.Sangeetha .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Social Welfare, Chennai- 600 005. 2.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 3.The Commissioner, Dharmapuri District Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri. 4.M.Amsa .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent herein to consider the petitioner's appeal, dated 10.03.2016, preferred as against the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6361/2015/X1, dated 30.10.2015, after giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders regarding appointment of petitioner as Cook Assistant in the Noon Meal Centre at Government Higher School, Pudhubalasamuthiram, Dharmapuri, in accordance with law, by cancelling the said illegal appointment made to the 4^th respondent within a time limit stipulated by this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj For Respondents : Mr.A.Kumar Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 No Appearance for R3

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶11

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent herein to consider the petitioner's appeal, dated 10.03.2016, preferred as against the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6361/2015/X1, dated 30.10.2015, after giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders regarding appointment of petitioner as Cook Assistant in the Noon Meal Centre at Government Higher School, Pudhubalasamuthiram, Dharmapuri, in accordance with law, by cancelling the said illegal appointment made to the 4^th respondent.

¶12

The petitioner submitted an application for appointment as Cook Assistant in the Noon Meal Centre at Government Higher Secondary School, Pudhubalasamuthiram. Subsequently, the petitioner attended the interview and certificate verification was done, but, she was not selected for the said post. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal field by her to the 1^st respondent, on 10.03.2016, requesting to cancel the appointment of 4^th respondent and to appoint the petitioner as Cook Assistant is till date pending and there was no response. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the relief stated supra.

¶13

Mr.S.P.Yuaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the 1^st respondent to consider the appeal filed, on 10.03.2016, and pass appropriate orders.

¶14

Mr.A.Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, would contend that the appeal is pending.

¶15

Taking into consideration that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent, on 10.03.2016, and the same is pending before him, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the 1^st respondent to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner, on 10.03.2016, and pass appropriate orders, after issuing notice, and affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.

¶16

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

¶17

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶19

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Commissioner of Social Welfare,
Chennai- 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3.The Commissioner,
Dharmapuri District Panchayat Union,
Dharmapuri.
+1cc to Mr.S.P.Yuaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.38622
+1cc to Mr.S.Diwakar, Advocate, S.R.No.38634
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.39151
W.P.No.22057 of 2016
gj[co]
srg 27/07/2016

¶20

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

P.Sangeetha, v. The Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sangeetha, v. The Commissioner of

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

D.Rajendran Vs The Managing Director

G.Semban, Vs The Managing Director

N.Selvi Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Dr.S.Kalaimathi Vs The Principal Secretary to

R.Nandhagopal, Vs The Joint Director of

P.Vasunathan, Vs The Secretary