Dismissed

M.Seyadu Ali Fathima, v. the Chairman

Madras HC8 Feb 2017WP/3017/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 for appointment as PG Assistant and consequential benefits, the High Court inclined to dismiss the petition based on the recruitment board's order and directed the petitioner to challenge it before the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the board's order before the appropriate forum.

M.Seyadu Ali Fathima, Vs the Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.02.2017 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶3

W.P.No.3017 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013

M.Seyadu Ali Fathima

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chairman,

Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayers: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to include the petitioner (Roll No.12PG01020750) in the list of selected candidates for appointment to the post of PG Assistant (Tamil) under the Direct Recruitment of post of Graduate Assistants for the year 2011-12 and appoint the petitioner as PG Assistant (Tamil) with reference to her rank and grant her all consequential benefits.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.P.Rajendran For Respondent : Mr.P.Chinnadurai, GA

¶11

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying to include the petitioner (Roll No.12PG01020750) in the list of selected candidates for appointment to the post of PG Assistant (Tamil) under the Direct Recruitment for the post of Graduate Assistants for the year 2011-12 and appoint the petitioner as PG Assistant (Tamil) with reference to her rank and grant her all consequential benefits.

¶12

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner in the meantime has made a representation to the respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board, on 17.06.2014 and the Board has passed an Order in its Proceedings in RC.No.6923/A3/2014, dated 05.09.2014.

¶13

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

¶14

3. In view of the above said order passed by the respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board, this Court is inclined to dismiss the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the said order before the appropriate forum, if so advised. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶15

-s/d-

¶16

Assistant Registrar

¶17

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
pvs
To
The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
+1 cc to the Government Pleader High Court Madras sr 8284
+1 cc to M/s.P.Rajendran Advocate sr 8480
W.P.No.3017 of 2013
& M.P.No.1 of 2013
ss(co)
aa21/02/2017

¶18

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

M.Seyadu Ali Fathima, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Seyadu Ali Fathima, v. the Chairman

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

R.Ramesh Vs District Elementary

N.Sumathi Vs the District Collector

V. Kalian Vs the Special Tahsildar

C.Vijayakumari Vs the District Collector

J.Vengatesamurthy, Vs the Chairman

A.Salavudeen, Vs the District Collector