Disposed

Mrs. P.Sridevi, v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Mar 2018WP/5242/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Anganwadi Worker, challenged her termination order alleging violation of natural justice as her representation was not considered. The Court directed the District Collector to consider her representation on merits and pass a speaking order within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and pass a speaking order within three weeks.

Mrs. P.Sridevi, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.03.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

W.P.No.5242 of 2018

Mrs.P.Sridevi

.. Petitioner

-vs-

The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai

¶10

The Planning Officer (ICDS) Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai .. Respondents

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relevant to the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings Ref.No.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.1892 A1/2017 dated 13.02.2018 and quash the same as illegal, improper against the natural justice and thereby permit the petitioner to join and continue his service in the second respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner :: Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan For Respondents :: Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate ORDER

¶13

This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 13.2.2018 passed by the second respondent removing the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Worker immediately after she was appointed on 18.1.2018, citing a reason that the petitioner had concealed the employment of her husband in the Government department. However, the impugned order further says that the petitioner has been given 15 days time to give her objection to the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, the first respondent herein. After giving the representation on 24.2.2018, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the impugned order of termination has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶14

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

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was appointed on 18.1.2018 as an Anganwadi worker, the petitioner disclosed all the facts including the employment of her husband in a government department. Therefore, it is not open to the second respondent to say that the petitioner had concealed her husband's employment in a government job. However, she has also given a detailed representation to the first respondent-District Collector on 24.2.2018. Therefore, a direction be issued to the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai to consider the pending representation dated 24.2.2018 on merits.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that had the petitioner disclosed the truth in respect of the employment of her husband in a government department, she would not have been awarded with 15 marks. But, in the present case, the award of 15 marks clearly shows that the petitioner had concealed her husband's employment in a government department. Therefore, as per rules, when the petitioner had concealed her husband's employment in government department and wrongly got 15 marks, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, no interference is called for.

¶17

Be that as it may. When the petitioner was given 15 days time to give her objection to the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, the first respondent herein, pursuant to the same, the petitioner has given her detailed representation on 24.2.2018 to the first respondent and the same has not been considered till date. Therefore, this Court hereby directs the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, W.M.P.No.6431 of 2018 is closed. No costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

¶23

The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai

¶24

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

¶25

The Planning Officer (ICDS) Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai

¶26

+1 cc to M/s.B.Gopalakrishnan Advocate sr 17961

¶27

W.P.No.5242 of 2018

¶28

aa22/03/2018

¶29

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

Mrs. P.Sridevi, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. P.Sridevi, v. The District Collector

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

Prabhu Vs The Senior Administrative

M.Raja, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.Ravichandran, Vs The Additional chief Secretary

K. Rajesh Vs The Director General of

R.Palanisamy, Vs The Managing Director

Miss.Leemaroslien Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu