Dismissed

R.Kamala, v. the Member Secretary

Madras HC21 Aug 2017WP(MD)/14887/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a retest for the petitioner in the 100 metres running event. After viewing the selection video footage, the Court found the petitioner completed the run in 17.69 seconds, exceeding the required time, and thus rejected the claim of improper measurement.

What did the court decide?

No order directing a retest; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

R.Kamala, Vs the Member Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.08.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶6

WP(MD)No.14887 of 2017 and WMP(MD)No.11727 of 2017

R.Kamala

... Petitioner

vs.

1)The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai.

¶11

2)The Chairman Sub Committee, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Virudhunagar Range, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order vide C.No.R2/150/2017, dated 04.08.2017 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to hold retest for the petitioner in respect of the 100 meter running event and proceed with the same further in the Common Recruitment for the posts of Gr.II Police Constables (Men, Women & Third Gender), Gr.II Jail Warders (Men & Women) and Firemen for the year 2017.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkateswaran For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi

¶15

Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings in C.No.R2/150/2017 dated 04.08.2017 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the video footage of the petitioner's 100 metres running event to ascertain that she was qualified in the said test and proceed further with the recruitment process in the Common Recruitment for the posts of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Grade II Police Constables (Men, Women & third Gender)/ Grade II Jail Warders (Men & Women) and Firemen for the year 2017.

¶18

¶19

2.The impugned order has been questioned on the ground that

¶20

during physical efficiency test, the petitioner's performance in 100 metres running event had not been measured properly, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶21

3.Considering the said submission, this Court directed the

¶22

learned Additional Advocate General to produce the videographs taken during selection to the aforementioned posts.

¶23

4.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the videogrpahs in respect of performance of the petitioner in 100 metres running event has been displayed before this Court in the presence of the petitioner and her counsel. The video clipping/recording shows that the petitioner was not able to run within 17 seconds, but completed 100 metres running event in 17.69 seconds, hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CSII)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1)The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai.

¶30

2)The Chairman Sub Committee, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Virudhunagar Range, Virudhunagar.

¶31

+One cc to Mr.R.Venkateswaran, Advocate, SR.No.74029 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.74193 am RL/5C/2P/KP/SAR1/25/9/2017 W.P(MD)No.14887 of 2017

¶32

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

¶33

21.08.2017

R.Kamala, v. the Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kamala, v. the Member Secretary

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

R.Rajkumar, S/O Ragavendran, Vs the Assistant Director

P.Selvaraj Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op.

K.Renugadevi, Vs the Member Secretary

R.Pavithra Vs the Chairman

V.Vijayakumar, Vs the Chairman

R.Thirumalsamy Vs the Chief Secretary to