Dismissed

K.Rajasekar, v. the Chairman

Madras HC7 Jun 2018WA/1296/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ appeal asking the Recruitment Board to permit participation in a direct recruitment exam for the post of Sub Inspector. The court observed that the recruitment for the relevant year was over, rendering the appeal infructuous and thus dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed as infructuous as the direct recruitment for the year 2010 was over.

K.Rajasekar, Vs the Chairman — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.06.2018

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

and

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶7

W.A.No.1296 of 2010

¶8

and M.P.No.2 of 2010

¶9

K.Rajasekar .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs

¶10

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai - 2. .. Respondent Prayer:

¶11

Writ Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act against the order dated 01.07.2010 made in M.P.No.2 of 2010 in W.P.No.14090 of 2010.

¶12

Prayer in M.P.NO.2/2010 in WP.NO.14090/2010:

¶13

Petition filed to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to write the written examination scheduled to be held on 04.07.2010 at 10.00 a.m. For direct recruitment for the post of Sub Inspector for the year 2010 vide Advertisement No.110 and code No.1 pending W.P.NO.14090/2010.

¶14

Prayer in WP.NO.14090/2010:

¶15

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records pertaining to the Prospectus of Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services in respect of Clause 2 E “regarding pass of Higher Secondary Examination +2” and the information published through internet dated nil rejecting the petitioners application and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to accept the petitioners application and permit him to participate in the selection process for the Direct recruitment for the post of Sub Inspector for the year 2010 vide Advertisement No.110 and code No.1.

¶16

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

¶17

For Appellant .. Mr.U.Karunakaran For Respondent .. No appearance

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶20

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 01.07.2010 made in M.P.No.2 of 2010 in W.P.No.14010 of 2010, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the miscellaneous petition.

¶21

2.On a perusal of the relief sought for, it appears that the direct recruitment for the year 2010 has been over long time back. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ appeal and the writ appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi
To
The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board, Chennai - 2.

¶23

W.A.No.1296 of 2010 mr(co) nr 26/06/2018

¶24

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

K.Rajasekar, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rajasekar, v. the Chairman

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

Chevalier T. Thomas Vs M/S. Union Carbide Employees

Dr.B.R.Shankar, Vs B.R.Srinivasa Rao

T. Ashok Surana Vs T. Suresh Surana

K. Shivakumar Vs Murugesan

S.Rajendran, Vs the Spl. Officer

R 719 Valasiramani Primary Vs Presiding Officer