A writ petition challenging an order rejecting an appointment application was dismissed for non-prosecution initially. Upon being listed for mention after the petitioner failed to appear, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that appointment is not a matter of right and the representation could not be considered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.10.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.4120 of 2014
S.Thirunavukkarasu ... Petitioner
for Persons with Disabilities(CCPD), Sarojini House, 6 Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi-110 001.
K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent in its Letter No.A2/973/13 dated 17/07/2013 pertaining to the Registration No.CHS1989M00000531 dated 25.05.1989 and quash the same consequentially directing the respondents 1 to 5 herein to consider the case of the petitioner for employment opportunities by relaxing the age and qualification in accordance to the persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari
Government Advocate for RR1 to 3 and 5
: Mr.V.Venkatesan
Senior Central Governmanet Standing Counsel for R4
O R D E R
The Matter was listed for hearing on 12.10.2017 and there was no representation on behalf of the writ petitioner. Once again, the case is listed for hearing under the caption “for dismissal” on 13.10.2017, but today also none represented on behalf of the writ petitioner.
Thus, the writ petition stands dismissed for Nonprosecution. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
dna 13.10.2017
This matter having been listed under the caption for Being Mentioned on 12.12.2017 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 13.10.2017 and made herein in the presence of the aforesaid counsel on the either sie, the court made the following order;
Today the writ petition is posted under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' and this Court passed the following order:“The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in its Letter No.A2/973/13 dated 17.7.2013 pertaining to the Registration No. CHS1989M00000531 dated 25.5.1989 and quash the same consequentially direct the respondents 1 to 5 herein to consider the case of the petitioner for employment opportunities by relaxing the age and qualification in accordance to The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
5. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to consider the representation submitted to the respondents, cannot be considered at all.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”
SVN 12.12.2017
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Employment and Training Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director,
Employment and Training Department,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
3. The Special District Employment Officer,
(DEO) for Physically Handicapped
Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
4. The Chief Commissioner,
for Persons with Disabilities(CCPD),
Sarojini House, 6 Bhagwan Dass Road,
New Delhi-110 001.
5. The Commissioner, Disabilities(CPD),
Government of Tamil Nadu,
State Resource-cum-Training Centre campus,
Jawaharlal Nehru inner ring road,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078.
+1cc to Mr.M.Jaikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.74448
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.74754
W.P.No.4120 of 2014
SKV(CO)
CA(10/11/2017)
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
EU 14.12.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the relief sought for in the writ petition to consider the representation submitted to the respondents for appointment can be granted.
Whether the Court should consider the matter for dismissal or hearing regarding employment appointment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Thirunavukkarasu
The Secretary to Government, Employment and Training Department
The Director, Employment and Training Department
The Special District Employment Officer
The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
The Commissioner, Disabilities
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
