Allowed

R.Jayachandran, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC21 Dec 2018WP/19613/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a 100% blind Principal Grade I seeking reposting in Chennai due to disability grievances against the Higher Education Department. The Court listed six available colleges in Chennai and directed the respondents to accommodate the petitioner there within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to accommodate the petitioner in any one of the six specified colleges in Chennai within two weeks.

R.Jayachandran, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 21.12.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶5

Writ Petition No.19613 of 2018

¶6

& WMP No.23029 of 2018

¶7

R.Jayachandran

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Vs - 1 The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2 The Director of Collegiate Education, Directorate of Collegiate Education 9th Floor EVK Sampath Building College Road Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for posting the petitioner in any one of the available vacancies in Chennai in the post of Principal Grade I or any other equivalent post considering the petitioners disability.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. L.P.Maurya For Respondents : Mrs. Narmada Sampath, Additional Advocate General assisted by, Mrs. P.Kavitha, Govt. Advocate. O R D E R

¶13

Seeking a posting in Chennai, in the post of Principal Grade I, or any other equivalent post, by considering the petitioner's disability, this writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner.

¶14

It is stated that the petitioner is presently working as

¶15

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

¶16

Principal Grade I in Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Arts College, Tirutanni. However, he was given Government Quarters in Thirumangalam, Chennai. The petitioner, being disabled person with 100% blindness, finds it very difficult to travel the said college to Tiruttani from Thirumangalam. Therefore, he approached the second respondent, on 13.12.2017 before his promotion to the post of Principal Grade I and had reqeusted for posting him in some college / training center in Chennai. The petitioner also gave a representation to the Chief Minister's Cell on 14.12.2014 which was forwarded to the second respondent.

¶17

2.1. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated 22.05.2018 to the second respondent requesting for posting in any of the Colleges / Training Centers in Chennai, expressing his difficulties / disabilities to travel from Thirumangalam to Tiruttanni. Since no action has been taken till date, the petitioner approached this Court.

¶18

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there are guidelines to the effect that preference should be given to the persons with disabilities for providing them accessible accommodation near their place of posting and preference should also be given in the place of posting at the time of transfer / promotion to persons with disability; despite the post of Joint Director of Planning and Development being vacant from 01.06.2018, the petitioner has not been considered for posting in the said post, which is well within the City limits; the inaction on the part of the respondents made the petitioner to suffer and constrained to approach this Court.

¶19

A perusal of the letter, dated 10.08.2018, addressed by the first respondent to the second respondent reveals that the petitioner cannot be accommodated in the post of Joint Director (Planning and Development) and he has been accommodated to a nearby Government College, which is claimed to be incorrect.

¶20

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the guidelines given in G.O.Ms.No.360, dated 10.12.2017, and submitted that the guidelines have not been properly followed, while promoting and posting the petitioner at Tiruttani; the petitioner also states that he is at the verge of retirement and according to the Government guidelines, he must not be posted to a far off place.

¶21

As the disability of the petitioner is 100% and the persons in the family, who can assist the petitioner is also stated to be partially visually challenged to the extent of 50%, it is necessary that the request for transfer should have been considered.

¶22

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

¶23

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, on instructions, has produced the list of six colleges in and around Chennai, in which the petitioner can be accommodated. The list is furnished hereunder:-

¶24

S. No.	Name (Thiru / Tmt / Dr) Name of the College	Place	Qualific ation	Date of Birth Date of Retirem ent.	Date of initial appoint ment.
1.	Prabakar an R Govt. Arts College for Men, Nandanam	Chenn ai - 35	M.Com., M.Phil., Ph.D.,	14.01.1 961 31.01.2 019	07.12.1 984
2.	Freeda Gnanarai D Quiad-e- millath Govt. Arts College for women	Chenn ai – 2	M.Sc.M.P hil., Ph.D.,	01.07.1 962 30.06.2 020	18.07.1 985
3.	Santhi S Queen Mary's College	Chenn ai – 4	M.Sc. B.Ed., M.Phil. Ph.D.,	17.07.1 961 31.07.2 019	23.08.1 985
4.	Geetha A Dr. Ambedtkar Govt. Arts College, Vyasarpadi	Chenn ai – 39	M.Sc., M.Phil., Ph.D.,	01.11.1 961 31.10.2 019	30.10.1 989
5.	Gladis D Bharathi Women's College	Chenn ai – 108	MCA . M.Phil, Ph.D.,	05.05.1 967 31.05.2 025	04.01.1 991
6.	Ravanan R Presidency College	Chenn ai – 5	M.Sc.M.P hil, Ph.D.,	05.0.19 65 30.04.2 023	31.12.1 990

¶25

7.1. It is also submitted that in Women's College only women could be posted and hence, the petitioner cannot be accommodated in the women's college.

¶26

When this Court raised a question as to whether, it is mandatory to post only a woman in the women's college or this is a matter of convenience, the learned AAG would submit that it is only a matter of convenience.

¶27

Under the circumstances, the respondents are directed to accommodate the petitioner in any one of the said six colleges, of which the list has been furnished, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

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

¶29

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.

¶30

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
srk
To
1 The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu
Higher Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2 The Director of Collegiate Education,
Directorate of Collegiate Education
9th Floor EVK Sampath Building
College Road Chennai-600 006.
+1cc to Mr.K.P.Mauriya, Advocate, S.R.No. 89978
W.P.No.19613 of 2018
& WMP No.23029 of 2018
RSK(CO)
GN(11/01/2019)

¶31

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

R.Jayachandran, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Jayachandran, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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.Sathyanathan Vs P.Pushpanathan

R.Sathyanathan Vs P.Pushpanathan

Karnan Vs Sumathi

Selvi Vs State Represented by

J.Subitha, Vs S.a.Raman Ias.

T. Amudha, Vs K.Kolandaswamy