Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation submitted on 22.10.2013 regarding reservation status in a service examination within eight weeks, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the claim.
Direction to respondent to consider petitioner's representation on merits within eight 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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.03.2017
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P(MD)No.2929 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014
R.Chitra ... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER : Writ Petition field under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to consider the Petitioner as Backward Class other than Muslim(Woman) Tamil Medium candidate in the Combined Subordinate Service Examination-1 and consequently call for Interview and appoint the petitioner based on the petitioner's aggregate marks in the appropriate posting in the 2011 Combined Subordinate Service Exam with consequential benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Senthil Standing Counsel for TNPSC O R D E R
Though the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus for giving positive directions to the first respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be suffice, if this Court give a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation which was sent on 22.10.2013.
2
“the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation which was sent on 22.10.2013 as per the postal receipt, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For convenience the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to the first respondent. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the petitioner's claim.”
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(WRITS) /True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
MAS/MR/SAR4:06.04.2017:2P-5C
W.P(MD)No.2929 of 2014 08.03.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation regarding reservation status.
R. Chitra
The Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary
The Controller of Examination
S.S. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
