Dismissed

M.Sivakarthiga, v. Union of India

Madras HC4 Apr 2017WP/5292/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order directing the Government to issue a fresh notification for Nursing Orderly posts. The Court held the Tribunal was correct in directing a fresh notification to include Physically Handicapped categories, noting the petitioner failed to challenge the initial notification before selection.

What the court decided

AI extract

M.Sivakarthiga, Vs Union of India — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

W.P.No.5292 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

M.Sivakarthiga ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Union of India, rep. By Government of Puducherry through the Commissioner of Labour, Labour Department, Puducherry. 2.P.Thirugnana Azhagu 3.G.Chitra 4.T.Hemalatha 5.K.Mathina 6.V.Vinothini 7.A.Arul Mathi 8.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 8^th respondent in respect of its decision in O.A.No.234 of 2010 dated 30.11.2012 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Nursing Orderly under the Physically Handicapped quota with effect from the date on which the respondents 2 to 7 are appointed.

¶9

For Petitioner : Ms.Suvidha George For Respondents: Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, Special Government Pleader for R1 For Respondents 3,6 & 7 : No appearance For Respondents 4 & 5 : Not Ready in Notice

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.

¶13

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30 November, 2012 in O.A.No.234 of 2012 negativing the claim made by the petitioner for appointing her as Nursing Orderly under the Physically Handicapped Category.

¶14

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Services) on behalf of the first respondent.

¶15

The first respondent issued a Notification, dated 5 January, 2009 calling for applications for appointment to the post of Nursing Orderly. The petitioner submitted application for appointment under the Scheduled Caste Category. There was no reservation for Physically Handicapped candidates and as such, the petitioner restricted her application under Scheduled Caste category. She was not selected. The petitioner, thereafter, challenged the Notification dated 5 January, 2009 on the ground that 3% of the vacancies were not reserved for Physically Handicapped candidates. The Tribunal, without giving relief to the petitioner, directed the Government of Puducherry, to issue a fresh notification for filling up the post of Nursing Orderly. The said order is put in issue in this writ petition.

¶16

The petitioner submitted her application for appointment under Schedule Caste Category, pursuant to the notification dated 5 January, 2009. There was no reservation for Physically Handicapped Category. The petitioner, without challenging the Notification submitted application for appointment. The petitioner was not selected. It was only thereafter, the petitioner challenged the legality and correctness of the Notification dated 5 January, 2009. The Tribunal, without setting aside the selection directed the first respondent to issue a fresh notification for appointment taking into account the vacancies.

¶17

There is no question of setting aside the Notification after completion of selection process and appointing the respondents 2 to 7 as Nursing Orderly (women). The petitioner ought to have challenged the Notification before submitting to the selection process. We are therefore of the view that the Tribunal was correct in directing the first respondent to ear

¶18

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

¶19

mark posts for Physically Handicapped candidates and issue fresh notification taking into account the Official Memorandum, dated 29 December, 2005. We are therefore of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner to take a different view in the matter.

¶20

In the up shot, we dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VI)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
svki
To
1.The Commissioner of Labour,
Labour Department, Puducherry.
2.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai.
+1cc to M/s.Office of the Government Pleader sr.20882
+1cc to M/s.V.Ajaykumar,Advocate sr.20529
W.P.No.5292 of 2013
nr(co)
ss(20/6/2017)

¶22

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

M.Sivakarthiga, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.Sivakarthiga, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr.Arthur Devasingh Vs Employees Provident Fund

V.Sethuraman Vs Union of India

R.Poonguzhali Vs Union of India, Rep by Union

N.Dhandapani Vs Ashok K.Agarwal

M. Perumal Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Murali, Vs The District Collector