Dismissed

N.Raja, NO.73 Bose Street, v. the Assistant Director

Madras HC20 Jan 2017WP/3031/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order requiring a No Objection Certificate to add qualifications for sponsorship to higher posts. The Single Judge dismissed the petition for lack of merits, noting the petitioner had already regularized service, but granted liberty to approach the employer for the N.O.C.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the employer for a No Objection Certificate to retain qualifications and get sponsored for future

N.Raja, NO.73 Bose Street, Vs the Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.01.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.3031 of 2011

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶7

N.Raja ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Assistant Director (General), District Employment Exchange Office, Santhome, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 16.09.2010 made in B3/11600/2010 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the register maintained by the respondent and sponsor the name of the petitioner in future employment vacancies.

¶11

Government Advocate

¶12

The writ petition is filed with the prayer of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 16.09.2010 made in B3/11600/2010 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the register maintained by the respondent and sponsor the name of the petitioner in future employment vacancies.

¶13

According to the petitioner, the petitioner was working as Conductor in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Chennai. At that time, the petitioner was not given regular

¶14

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

¶15

employment by the Transport Corporation. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He has acquired highest education qualification such as B.Com, D.Cop., and DNCC. Therefore, he made a representation dated 27.08.2010 to the respondent in person. The respondent by the impugned order dated 16.09.2010 informed that the petitioner should obtain "No Objection Certificate" from the employer for entering the additional qualification in the register so as to enable the respondent to recommend his name for higher post. Thereafter, he moved before the respondent by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act. The authority replied on 20.10.2010 that the name of the petitioner, who has got appointment only on daily wages basis, will not be deleted. Since the respondent has clarified the position himself, he was genuinely hoping that his name will be included in the register and his name will be sponsored in the future vacancies.

¶16

By way of filing the counter affidavit, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner has produced No Objection Certificate. Pending the writ petition, his service has been regularized. However, the only request of the petitioner is to sponsor his name to the Chennai Cooperative Bank if he is otherwise eligible. It is submitted that the question of community etc., are irrelevant to the present case in hand. If he thought his name should be sponsored to the higher post, he might have produced "No Objection Certificate" as informed by the respondent in letter dated 16.09.2010. Therefore, this Court has to pass appropriate orders in the writ petition.

¶17

Taking into consideration the said submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, this Court is of the view that there is no prima facie case made out to entertain the writ petition. This Court finds that the writ petition deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of devoid of merits. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner, to approach his employer/Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Chennai, for obtaining "No Objection Certificate" to retain his other qualifications in the employment office register, to get his name sponsored to higher posts. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(J)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

¶24

The Assistant Director (General), District Employment Exchange Office, Santhome,

¶25

Chennai – 600 004.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Advocate, S.R.No.4152 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.4292

¶27

W.P.No.3031 of 2011 GJ(CO) CA(05/04/2017)

¶28

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

N.Raja, NO.73 Bose Street, v. the Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Raja, NO.73 Bose Street, v. the Assistant Director

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

C.Rajeswari, Vs the Govt., of Tamilnadu

R.Chenchaiah Vs the Member Secretary

C.Manoharan Vs District Registrar

Tmt.D.Thilagavathi Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Tamilarasan Vs the District Adidravida and

M. Arulselvam Vs the District Adidravida and