Disposed

R.Delhiraj v. the Government of Puducherry

Madras HC24 Oct 2018WP/4101/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the vacancy preference given to contingent staff over regular employment exchange applicants. The petition lacked proof of service for the initial representation, leading to a procedural remand with time limits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to give fresh representation within two weeks; respondents bound to consider same on merits within eight weeks with opportunity to all parties.

R.Delhiraj Vs the Government of Puducherry — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.10.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P. No.4101 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶6

R.Delhiraj .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1.The Government of Puducherry, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandary Department, Puducherry. 2.The Government of Puducherry, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Puducherry. 3.The Chairman, Rajiv Gandhi College of Veterinary Sciences, Kurumbapet, Puducherry - 9. 4.The Dean, Rajiv Gandhi College of Veterinary Sciences, Kurumbapet, Puducherry - 9. .. Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third and fourth respondents to recruit the petitioner who is registered with the Employment Exchange, Government of Pondicherry, in the year 1995, in any one of the vacancies arisen in the posts of Lower Divisional Clerk, Driver, Lab Attender, Farm Attender, Animal Attender and Peon in the third respondent's University before absorbing the staffs working under contingent payment with the third respondent University to the said vacancies.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mrs.Kavitha Deenadayalan For Respondents : Mr.P.Visvas Soundaram

¶10

Government Advocate for R1 & R2

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard Mrs.Kavitha Deenadayalan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.P.Visvas Soundaram, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.

¶14

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 3 and 4 to recruit the petitioner, who is registered with the Employment Exchange, Government of Pondicherry, in the year 1995, in any one of the vacancies arisen in the posts of Lower Divisional Clerk, Driver, Lab Attender, Farm Attender, Animal Attender and Peon in the third respondent's University before absorbing the staffs working under contingent payment with the third respondent University to the said vacancies.

¶15

According to the petitioner, he has successfully completed 10th standard and registered with the Employment Exchange on 12.01.1995. Subsequently, he completed his driving and typing courses and again registered with the Employment Exchange on 21.09.2005 and 29.11.2006 with the said qualifications.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is that when a vacancy arose in the third respondent College, the Officials instead of appointing the persons through Employment Exchange, decided to absorb the temporary workers, who are already working in the College.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 18.02.2011 was unattended by the respondents. Hence, the present Writ Petition and the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that the representation of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law.

¶19

In the case on hand, the Writ Petition has been filed based on the representation dated 18.02.2011, but no proof of service has been enclosed in the typed set. In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions of the counsel, the writ Petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such compliance, the

¶20

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

¶21

respondents shall consider the same and pass orders purely on merits and in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to all necessary parties, within a period of eight weeks therefrom. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS v)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
.
r n s
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Puducherry,
Animal Husbandary Department,
Puducherry.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Puducherry,
Finance Department,
Puducherry.
+1 CC TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.NO. 72694
W.P. No.4101 of 2011 &
M.P.No.1 of 2011
ASK(04/12/2018)

¶23

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

R.Delhiraj v. the Government of Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Delhiraj v. the Government of Puducherry

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

C.Sellamuthu Vs the Secretary to Government

K. Raji Vs the Tahsildar

Muruganandan Rajendran, Vs Union of India, Rep. by Chief

G.Thangamani Vs the District Employment

S.Surendran Vs the Secretary to Government

Erode Mathiya Perundhu Nilaya Vs the Regional Transport