Disposed

N.Gopal v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC3 Dec 2018WP(MD)/1674/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This matter concerns a petition challenging rejection for an Assistant Professor post due to insufficient marks. The court found a vacancy pending filling from a connected petition involving SC category representation. It disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to fill the vacant post with the next meritorious candidate within three months if the petitioner qualifies.

What did the court decide?

Direction to fill the vacant post with the next meritorious candidate from the waiting list within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

N.Gopal Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:03.12.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN W.P.(MD) No.1674 of 2015 and M.P(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2015

¶5

N.Gopal ... Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department,

¶8

Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶9

The Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, IVth Floor, Sampath Maligai, D.P.I Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned selection under direct recruitment for Assistant Professors in Government Arts an Science Colleges under Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service-2012 for the Sub.Code:D12-Computer Science, published in the website of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to prepare a fresh selection list applying properly the rule of roster, placing the petitioner under SCG Turn on merits within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner herein, who has applied for the post of Assistant Professors in Government Arts an Science Colleges, was not found eligible, as the petitioner secured marks below the cut off mark and hence, he approached this Court.

¶13

2.In the counter, the second respondent has submitted that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner has scored below the cut off mark and therefore, his candidature was not considered. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court in W.P(MD)No.264 of 2015 as per the direction of this

¶14

¶15

Court interim order was passed to keep one post vacant under the SC (G) category and due to the dismissal of W.P(MD) No.264 of 2015 vide order dated 09.01.2015, the said post is vacant and the next meritorious person will be accommodated in that post.

¶16

3.Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction that the vacant post shall be filled up by the next meritorious candidate found in the waiting list and if the petitioner is the next meritorious candidate, he shall be accommodated in that vacant post. The said process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶21

¶22

The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶23

The Secretary,

¶24

Teachers Recruitment Board, IVth Floor, Sampath Maligai, D.P.I Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy,Advocate Sr.No.98364

¶26

+1cc to SPL.Govt.Pleader, Sr.No.98443

¶27

¶28

KM/SV/SAR1/26.12.2018/2P/5C

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.1674 of 2015 03.12.2018

¶30

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

N.Gopal v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Gopal v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

S.Manoharan, Vs the Secretary to Govt

P.Lingaiah Vs the Secretary to Government

K. Manimekalai, Vs the Chairman

T.Paulthurai, Vs the General Manager

Thoothukudi Nagarachi Vs the Commissioner of Municipal

Pon.Ganesan Vs the Director of Panchayats