Disposed

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies v. Tamilnadu Civil Supplies

Madras HC8 Oct 2018WP/4527/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 challenging arbitrary denial of promotion under TNCSC Employees Service Regulations. The court directed the respondent to consider specific representations and decide on merits within 12 weeks without adjudicating merits itself.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider representations dated 04.01.2011 and 07.01.2011 and pass appropriate order on merits within 12 weeks.

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Vs Tamilnadu Civil Supplies — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.10.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Jananayaga Angadigal and Pothu Thozhilalar Sangam, Rep. by its General Secretary, (Regd.No.3170/CNI), (Affiliated to AICCTU), No.10, 11th Street, Karunanidhi Nagar, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023. .. Petitioner Vs.

¶6

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -600 010. .. Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent herein to adhere to Rule 18 (a) and item 11 of Annexure 2 Rule 28 of TNCSC Limited Employees Service Regulations, 1989, regarding qualification for promotion as Assistants from Junior Assistants who are promoted from feeder categories and not to deny them arbitrarily promotion as Assistants on the ground that they have not passed the test of Book-keeping during probation period.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumaraswamy For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramachandran Standing Counsel

¶9

Heard Mr.S.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.S.Ramachandran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶10

The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to adhere Rule 18(a) and item 11 of Annexure 2 Rule 28 of TNCSC Limited Employees Service Regulations, 1989, regarding qualification for promotion as Assistants from Junior Assistants who are promoted from feeder categories and not to deny them, arbitrarily promotion as

¶11

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

¶12

Assistants on the ground that they have not passed the test of Book-keeping during probation period.

¶13

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would state that the grievance of the petitioner is under consideration by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Board and the respondent is ready to take a decision in accordance with law.

¶14

In the light of the limited prayer sought for in the Writ Petition and the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 04.01.2011 and 07.01.2011 and pass appropriate orders purely on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. There is no order as to costs.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
r n s
To
The Chairman and Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk,
Chennai -600 010.
+1 CC to Mr.K.M. Ramesh, Advocate sr 69586.
+1 CC to Mr.S. Ramachandran, Advocate sr 69532.
W.P. No.4527 of 2011
SS(CO)
SP(12/11/2018)

¶16

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

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies v. Tamilnadu Civil Supplies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies v. Tamilnadu Civil Supplies

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

Mr.S. Kannisamy Vs the Inspector General of

T.S.Ravindran, Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Mrs.K.Sujatha Vs Mr.K.N.Somanathan

D. Sekar Vs the District Collector

G. Annamalai Nattar Vs the Commissioner

M/S.Citrex Products Ltd., Vs the District Collector