This court dismissed a writ petition seeking a service extension for an applicant who had already retired. The judgment held that service extension is not a legal right but depends on government terms and the applicant's conduct, noting the delay in filing.
No service extension granted; writ petition dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.10.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.10938 of 2013
K.Palani
... Petitioner
vs.
Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the 2nd respondent made on 30.12.2012 quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd respondent for service extension of the petitioner's up to the Academic year 2012-2013 for approval to the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Bharathy For Respondents : Mr. K.Karthikeyan for R1 Government Advocate M/s.M.R.Preethi for J.Sivanandaraj for R2 O R D E R
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to quash the order of rejection passed by the respondents in proceeding dated 30.12.2012 and direct the 2nd respondent to grant service extension to the writ petitioner up to the academic year 2012-2013.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an extension of service can be claimed as a matter of legal right.
K.Palani
The District Educational Officer, Chennai Education District
The Secretary and Correspondent Y.M.C.A. School Committee
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
