R.Chittibabu v. State of Tamilnadu
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioners, technical education staff facing service stagnation due to the abolition of the Instructor post, approached the High Court under Article 226. The Court directed the respondents to consider a collective representation filed by the petitioners on merits after due notice.
What did the court decide?
Directed respondents to consider petitioners' collective representation dated 08.12.2016 on merits with due notice and pass appropriate orders within three months.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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: 04.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
WRIT PETITION No.44803 of 2016
- R.Chittibabu
2. S.Seenuvasan
3. S.Selvan
4. G.Ramesh
5. K.Anandan ... Petitioners
vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Guindy,
Chennai 600 025.
3. The Additional Director of
Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Guindy,
Chennai 600 025. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to promote the petitioners to the post of Instructor or the post of Lecturer with effect from the date of promotion given to other similarly situated candidates as per G.O.Ms.No.95, Higher Education (C1) Department, dated 26.03.2008, passed in pursuance of the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1323 of 2011, dated 02.11.2011 and G.O.(Ms) No.121, Higher Education (C1) Department, dated 01.04.2011 passed in pursuance of the order of this Court in W.P.No.9905 of 2001, dated 10.07.2009 and W.A.No.807 of 2015, dated 19.06.2015 and also G.O.(Ms) No.20, Higher Education Department, dated 01.02.2016 with all monetary and service benefits.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for promotion to the post of Instructor or Lecturer upon consideration of their collective representation.
Whether the respondents are empowered to consider the petitioners' representation on merits within the stipulated time frame.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
R. Chittibabu
- petitioner
S. Seenuvasan
- petitioner
S. Selvan
- petitioner
G. Ramesh
- petitioner
K. Anandan
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court