Disposed

M.Raja v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC12 Oct 2017WP/5606/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of G.O. regarding Forest Watcher selection and direction for his appointment. Court held pendency does not deprive rights and permitted petitioner to submit representation for consideration with directions to respondents.)

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to submit representation regarding eligibility; directed second respondent to consider grievance and pass orders within 12 weeks; disposed of petition without order on costs.

M.Raja Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.10.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.5606 of 2014

¶6

and

¶7

WMP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

¶8

M.Raja ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force), Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 3.The Chief Wild Life Warden, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.187, Environment and Forest Department dated 19.11.2013 and quash the same and in so far as it relates to the selection to the post of Forest Watcher and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Forest Watcher on regular basis in the existing vacancies to the post of Forest watcher with consequential and other attendant benefits.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.M.Santhana Raman Additional Government Pleader (Forest)

¶12

The G.O.Ms.No.187, Environment and Forest Department dated 19.11.2013 is sought to be quashed in respect of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ selection to the post of Forest Watcher and further direction

¶13

is sought for to appoint the petitioner in the post of Forest Watcher.

¶14

2.The learned counsel made a submission that the batch of Plot Watchers and Supernumerary Anti Poaching Watchers were selected for the post of Forest Watcher and an order was issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in proceedings dated 28.04.22017. However, the writ petitioner is eligible but his name was not considered for appointment to the post of Forest watcher. The learned counsel further states that in view of the pendency of the writ petition, the name of the writ petitioner was not considered.

¶15

3.However, this Court is of the view that a mere pendency will not deprive the right of the writ petitioner and the case of the writ petitioner is also to be considered along with all other eligible candidates if the writ petitioner was also eligible and qualified to the post of Forest Watcher.

¶16

4.In this view of the matter, the writ petitioner is permitted to submit his representation to the second respondent, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation the second respondent is directed to consider the grievances of the writ petitioner based on his eligibility, qualifications and the length of service and pass appropriate orders, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, thereafter.

¶17

5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

¶23

1.The Additional Chief Secretary

¶24

to Government of Tamil Nadu, Environment and Forest department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶25

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

¶26

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force), Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 3.The Chief Wild Life Warden, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.G.Sankaran, Advocate, S.R.No.73571

¶28

W.P.No.5606 of 2014
KGK(CO)
GN(17/11/2017)

¶29

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

M.Raja v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Raja v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

V.Ganesh, Vs the Collector

M.Eraivan, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

S.Anbukumar, Vs The Director of School

D. Manoharan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

V.Ramalingam Vs State of Tamilnadu

M.Velayutham, Vs State of Tamil Nadu