Disposed

P.Anandh v. the Chairman

Madras HC22 Aug 2017WP(MD)/15308/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition and miscellaneous petition filed by a candidate disqualified due to height measurement issues, the Chennai Bench of Madras High Court, by consent of parties, disposed of the matter by directing the respondents to allow the petitioner another opportunity for height measurement.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to give petitioner one more opportunity to take part in height measurement.

P.Anandh Vs the Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.08.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15308 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.12119 of 2017

¶7

P.Anandh ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Chairman,

¶10

Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, 807, 2^nd Floor, Anna Salai

¶11

Chennai – 600 002.

¶12

2.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul Distric.t

¶13

3.The Chairman Sub Committee/ Member,

¶14

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Dindigul Centre,Dindigul Range, Dindigul. ... Respondents

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in C.No. R2/150/2017, dated 28.07.2017 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reserve one post of Combined Recruitment of Grade -II Police Constables / Grade -II Jail Warders / Firemen - 2017 for the petitioner.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J. Karthick

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi

¶19

Additional Advocate General

¶20

Assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, Special Government Pleader

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

¶23

By consent of both parties, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The petitioner, having passed S.S.L.C, applied for the post of Grade -II Police Constables / Grad-II Jail Warders / Fireman –

¶25

¶26

2017, when applications were called for by the respondent Police Department. Subsequently, after passing the written examination, the petitioner was called for for the Physical Endurance Test.

¶27

3.Now, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the respondents have not measured his height properly. As a result, he has been found disqualified.

¶28

4.In view thereof, when the matter was earlier listed before this Court, this Court directed the respondents to produce the video recordings taken at the time of measurement.

¶29

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent directed Police Department to produce the video recordings before this Court.

¶30

6.However, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the video recording in respect of the petitioner could not be traced. Therefore the respondents are directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to take part in the height measurement.

¶31

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶34

/True Copy/

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar.

¶36

¶37

1.The Chairman,

¶38

Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, 807, 2^nd Floor, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002.

¶39

2.The Superintendent of Police,

¶40

Dindigul, Dindigul Distric.t

¶41

3.The Chairman Sub Committee/ Member,

¶42

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Dindigul Centre,Dindigul Range, Dindigul.

¶43

+1CC to Mr.R.J.Karthick, Advocate, SR.No.73796

¶44

+1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.74262

¶45

W.P.(MD)No. 15308 of 2017 21.08.2017

¶46

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

¶47

SDS/SV MMS/SAR 2/23.08.2017/2P/6C

P.Anandh v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Anandh v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Pavithra Vs the Chairman

V.Vijayakumar, Vs the Chairman

R.Thirumalsamy Vs the Chief Secretary to

V.Nanthini Vs the Chairman

Mahalakshmi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Rhenius Vs the Chief Engineer