Disposed

C.Dhakshinamoorthy v. the Principal Secretary

Madras HC1 Feb 2017WP(MD)/1529/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench directed the Director of School Education to consider the petitioner's representation for promotion under the 3% quota for physically disabled persons and pass appropriate orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2016 and pass appropriate orders within two months.

C.Dhakshinamoorthy Vs the Principal Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.02.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1529 of 2017

C.Dhakshinamoorthy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary, Education Department,

¶11

Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶12

2.The Director of School Education, Office of the Director of School Education,

¶13

Chennai-6. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus,directing the second respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2016, requesting the second respondent to promote the Petitioner as District Educational Officer under 3% quota for physically disabled persons as provided under Section 33 of Persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)Act, 1995.

¶15

For Petitioner : M/s.PT.S.Narendravasan For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate *********

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2016, requesting the second respondent to promote the Petitioner as District Educational Officer under 3% quota for physically disabled persons as provided under Section 33 of Persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)Act, 1995.

¶18

2.Mr.M.Rajarajan,learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

3.The case of the petitioner is that the Petitioner was employed as P.G.Assistant Teaher in the year 1997 in Government Higher Secondary School, Raghunathapuram, Pudukkottai District and after serving for nearly 18 years, now the Petitioner is working as Headmaster in Government Higher Secondary School, Pallathur, Tanjore District. Further the Petitioner is a physically disabled person with 50 percentage disability. But the above said benefit was not given to the Petitioner in respect of his promotion to the post of District Educational Officer. Hence the Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 18.11.2016 for the relief sought for in the prayer and since the said representation did not evoke any response, the petitioner is before this Court with the relief stated supra.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that it is agreeable for the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders thereon.

¶23

5.In view of the submission, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.11.2016 and to pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date on which a copy of this order is made ready, preferably on or before 1.4.2017, if there is no other legal impediment to do so.

¶24

6.With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CS-I) /True Copy/

¶27

vsn

¶28

To:

¶29