Disposed

Robson v. the District Employment

Madras HC17 Jul 2019WP/17305/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition without adjudicating merits. It directed the District Employment Officer to consider the petitioner's representation within eight weeks after providing a hearing opportunity, then pass orders on merits and law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders after hearing within eight weeks.

Robson Vs the District Employment — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.07.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

W.P.No.17305 of 2009

and

MP.1 of 2009

Robson ..Petitioner

Vs 1. The District Employment Officer, The District Employment Exchange Officer, Villupuram District.

¶10

Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Nanganeri. .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent herein to accord priority to the petitioner herein in connection with the Employment Exchange Card bearing No.12145/2004, as certified by the 2^nd respondent herein in his Certificate bearing Na.Ka.A.No.51/09, dated 17.04.2009.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevan For Respondents : Mr.I.Sathish Additional Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.I.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶15

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the first respondent to accord priority to the petitioner in connection with the Employment Exchange Card bearing No.12145/2004, certified by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.A.No.51/09, dated 17.04.2009.

¶16

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

¶17

According to the petitioner, his lands were acquired by the Government for certain public purposes and thereby, he deprived of his livelihood. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.188 (P&AR), dated 28.12.1986, the petitioner is entitled to get priority in the Employment Exchange. Though, the second respondent has given a certificate of priority, it was not considered by the first respondent. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that first respondent is ready to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law.

¶20

In the light of the limited scope of prayer sought for in this writ petition and the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.08.2009 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions is closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

ms To

¶26

The District Employment Officer, The District Employment Exchange Officer, Villupuram District.

¶27

The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Nanganeri.

¶28

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.61207

¶29

W.P.No.17305 of 2009 MP(CO) CS/17/09/2019

¶30

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

Robson v. the District Employment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robson v. the District Employment

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

M.Abdullah Sahib Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mrs. G Jayamani Vs the Secretary to Government

Mrs. G Jayamani Vs the Secretary to Government

Chettinad Cement Corporation Vs the Principal Special

P.S.Vengu Vs State of Tamilnadu

V.Radhika Vs the District Employment