Dismissed

M.Arul, v. The Director

Madras HC6 Sept 2017WP/8065/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directions to compel the respondent to consider a representation for an interview opportunity as an Office Assistant. The court held the prayer did not arise since the petitioner already received the call letter, noting any procedural irregularities must be pursued separately. The petition was dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed.

M.Arul, Vs The Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06-09-2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.8065 of 2016

¶7

M.Arul .. Petitioner
vs.
The Director,
Directorate of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005. .. Respondent

¶8

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 6.2.2016 and provide him an opportunity to appear for the interview in the matter of Office Assistant from the Directorate of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department as per the Call Letter dated 19.1.2016 issued by the respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chithirai Selvan For Respondent : Mr.S.Gunasekaran, Additional Government Pleader.

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated http://www.judis.nic.in 6.2.2016 and provide him an opportunity to appear for the interview in

¶12

¶13

the matter of Office Assistant from the Directorate of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department as per the Call Letter dated 19.1.2016 issued by the respondent.

¶14

Admittedly, a call letter was communicated to the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that though the interview was scheduled to be held on 29.1.2016, a call letter was communicated on the same day morning and accordingly, the procedure for communicating the call letter was not in accord with the law.

¶15

However, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for to consider the representation, at this point, does not arise at all and the writ petitioner has received the call letter. If there is any irregularity in the process of selection or appointment, it is left open to the writ petitioner to adjudicate the same in the manner known to law, so as to redress the grievances.

¶16

As far as the writ petition on hand is concerned, the relief sought for is for a direction to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the writ petitioner. Providing an opportunity to appear for an interview, cannot be a right of a candidate in the absence of establishing that he has got a legal right for such participation. http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

¶18

However, in this writ petition, it is a prayer to consider the representation, since it is admitted that the writ petitioner has received the call letter from the respondent, no question of considering the relief, as such, arises in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands

¶19

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

06-09-2017 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. Svn To The Director, Directorate of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Svn

WP No.8065 of 2016

06-09-2017

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.Arul, v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Arul, v. The 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

G. Bhas Vs The Chairman

Elaiyaraja.M Vs The Director of Medical

S.Mythili Vs The Director of School

P.Asokan Vs Director

R.Thangam, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Puwar Dhairyapalsinh Vs The Chairman and Managing