Disposed

P.Vanitha v. Teachers Recruitment Board

Madras HC2 Sept 2016WP/31073/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, without adjudicating on the merits of a qualification dispute, permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the Assistant Director regarding her eligibility for a Computer Instructor post, directing the authority to dispose of it within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to the second respondent within fifteen days; the second respondent is directed to dispose of it on merits within four weeks.

P.Vanitha Vs Teachers Recruitment Board — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 02.09.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

Writ Petition No.31073 of 2014

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

P.Vanitha .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Teachers Recruitment Board, rep by its Member Secretary, 4th Floor, EVKS Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Office, District Employment Office Building, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider the candidature of the petitioner, (holding B.Sc. (Mathematics) + M.C.A. + B.Ed), for the post of the Computer Instructor, on par with the prescribed qualification of B.E. (CS)/B.Sc.(CS)/BCA/B.Sc(IT) + B.Ed, as prescribed in the notification / advertisement, bearing No.07/2014, dated 13.10.2014 on the file of the first respondent, in pursuant to the representation given by the petitioner, dated 7.11.2014.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Selvakumar

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.P.Karthikeyan, GA ORDER

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

The writ petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider the candidature of the petitioner, holding B.Sc. (Mathematics), M.C.A., B.Ed, for the

¶13

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

¶14

post of Computer Instructor, on par with the prescribed qualification of B.E. (CS)/B.Sc.(CS)/BCA/B.Sc(IT) + B.Ed, as prescribed in the notification / advertisement, bearing No.07/2014, dated 13.10.2014, of the first respondent, pursuant to the representation given by the petitioner, dated 7.11.2014.

¶15

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if this Court is pleased to permit the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the second respondent, with regard to the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition, within a specified period and on such representation being made, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

¶17

In view of the limited relief sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to the second respondent, with regard to the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition, along with relevant documents, within a period of fifteen days, from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Asst.Registrar (CS VII )

¶20

/true copy/

¶21

¶22

1.The Member Secretary,

¶23

Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVKS Sampath Maligai,

¶24

DPI Compound, College Road,

¶25

Chennai-600 006.

¶26

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

¶27

2.The Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Office, District Employment Office Building, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶28

+1 cc to Mr.R.Selvakumar,advocate,sr.50392

¶29

+1 cc to Govt.Pleader,sr.50378.

¶30

krd 7/9

¶31

Writ Petition No.31073 of 2014

¶32

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

P.Vanitha v. Teachers Recruitment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vanitha v. Teachers Recruitment Board

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

Chennu Guru Prasad Vs The Commissioner

Dr. M.Navin Kumar, Vs the Director

Dr. Meettu Mathew, Vs the Director

R.Rajendran Vs The Inspector General of

R.Subbiah Naidu Vs The District Collector

Kamatchi, Vs the Inspector of Police