The High Court, at admission, directed the first respondent to consider a Review Application filed by petitioners seeking promotion to Revenue Inspector posts and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.
Direction to the first respondent to consider the Review Application and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.
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 : 05.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.8200 of 2017
1.S.Yakub Khan
2.K.Muniasamy
3.V.Prabhakaran
4.A.Mohamed Jalaludeen
5.M.Manickam
6.M.Jawahar .. Petitioners
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Commissioner,
Madurai Municipal Corporation,
Madurai. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of MANDAMUS, directing the first respondent to consider the Review Application of the petitioners dated 30.01.2017 with regard to creation of 12 posts of Revenue Inspectors (Special) based on the request of the Madurai Corporation Commissioner and pass orders on the same within the time frame manner.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan
For Respondents: Mr.K.Dhananjeyan Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2
O R D E R
Heard Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.Dhananjeyan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
2.The claim of the writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Special Revenue Inspector was recommended by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation in proceedings dated 21.12.2011. Necessary proposals were submitted seeking approval of the Government to grant promotion for the formation of the post of Special Revenue Inspector, since, the writ petitioners have completed 20 years of service as per the Government Order in this regard.
3.Though the proposals were submitted and the Commissioner has made necessary recommendations, the Government has not considered the same. Along with the proposals and the relevant Government Order, the writ petitioners have submitted a Review Application before the first respondent on 30.01.2017.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners have submitted that it is suffice if a direction is issued to consider the application submitted by the writ petitioners.
5.In view of the confinement of the Writ prayer, this Court is inclined to consider the relief.
6.Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider the Review Application submitted by the writ petitioners on 30.01.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioners are directed to submit a copy of the Review Application and all other necessary documents along with the copy of the order passed today in this Writ Petition.
7.The Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
ah/rpa
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Commissioner,
Madurai Municipal Corporation,
Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, Advocate SR.No.46953
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.46888
W.P.No.8200 of 2017
SSI(CO)
GN(18/07/2017)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the respondent Government to consider a Review Application seeking promotion of Revenue Inspectors.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Yakub Khan
K.Muniasamy
V.Prabhakaran
A.Mohamed Jalaludeen
M.Manickam
M.Jawahar
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
