Dismissed

K. Geetha v. the Member Secretary

Madras HC4 Dec 2017WP/16653/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court closed a writ petition seeking direction to consider MTP/AITP qualified candidates for Planning Assistant posts. Court held that as the 2011 selection process had concluded and a seven-year lapse had occurred, no further adjudication was possible.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands closed with no order as to costs; no further adjudication is required as the 2011 selection process was completed.

K. Geetha Vs the Member Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.16653 of 2011

and

W.M.P.No. 1 of 2011

K.Geetha .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai. 2. The Assistant Director, Professional Executive Employment Exchange, No.56, Santhome High Road, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider MTP/AITP qualified candidates like the petitioner for selection as Planning Assistant Grade I as provided in the Service Regulations in G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 26.02.1980 and not confine the selection only to B.E/B.Arch candidates.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balamuralikrishnan For Respondents : Mr .K.Thangapandi Government Advocate, for R2 No appearance, for R1

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the selection process of the year 2011 was challenged by the writ petitioner and this Court is of the opinion that the process have been completed by now. Further, the grievances of the writ petitioner is that the respondents have not followed the procedure while conducting the selection process in the year 2011. However, now this Court cannot go in to the allegations after a lapse of about seven years and it is needless to state that the respondents are bound to follow the rules in force for the purpose of appointing eligible candidates.

¶13

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

¶14

2.In the event of violation, the competent authorities are bound to rectify the same and if any Malpractices or irregular or illegal appointments are made the authorities competent have to initiate action against the petitioners, who have committed such malpractices or otherwise.

¶15

3.Thus, this court has made it clear that all appointments
to the public post ought to be done only by following the
recruitment rules in force and equal opportunity to the public
employment is the constitutional mandate and any violation there
of, will lead to prosecution against the competent authority.
However, in the case on hand, the relief as such sought for in
this writ petition cannot be granted, in view of the fact that
the process of selection has been completed in the year 2011
itself.
4.Thus, no further adjudication is required in this writ
petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Chennai.
2. The Assistant Director,
Professional Executive Employment Exchange,
No.56, Santhome High Road, Chennai.
+1 cc to Mr.V.Vijay Shankar Advocate sr 86126
W.P.No.16653 of 2011
and
W.M.P.No. 1 of 2011
aa02/01/2018

¶16

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

K. Geetha v. the Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Geetha v. the Member Secretary

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.Kumar Vs the Chairman

K.v.Chandrika Vs Arumugam

G.Viswanathan, Vs the Director

K. Mohandoss Vs the Secretary to Government

E.Chelladurai Vs N.S.Palaniappan IAS

Pandian, Vs the Secretary to Government