Allowed

S.Subasree v. Union of India

Madras HC12 Jun 2019WP/2328/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras quashed an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that disposed of a police recruitment application at the admission stage. The Court directed the Tribunal to decide the petitioners' claim for sports-personage age relaxation on merits by September 20, 2019, before the selection cycle closes.

What did the court decide?

Original Application disposed of at admission stage set aside; Tribunal directed to dispose of matter on merits by September 20, 2019.

S.Subasree Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.06.2019

¶3

CORUM

¶4

THE HONOURNABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.2328 of 2019

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.2572 of 2019
1. S.Subasree
2. S.Sowmiya
3. V.Anandhan ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by the
Government of Puducherry,
through the Secretary to
Government (DP &AR),
Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry.
2. The Inspector General of Police,
Police Department,
Puducherry.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Headquarters, Police Department,
Puducherry.
4. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for records of the 4th respondent in
O.A.No.1627 of 2018 dated 10.12.2018 and to quash the same
and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to permit
the petitioners to participate in the selection process in
the M.B.C., O.B.C., General and Sports category and to give

¶9

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

¶10

appointment to the petitioners to the post of Police Constable.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ajaykumar For Respondents : Mr.Syed Mustafa, Government Advocate (Pondicherry)

¶12

q O R D E R

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.,) The petitioners filed Original Application before the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.310/2018 seeking for a direction to the respondents herein to extend them the benefit of age relaxation meant for the Meritorious Sports Persons as provided in the relevant rules, and to consider their case against the Meritorious Sports Persons Quota as well as General/ OBC category in accordance with the notification No.2841/A1/Estt.I(B)/POL/2018 dated 20.08.2018 and to appoint them in the post of Police Constable.

¶14

The Central Administrative Tribunal was pleased to pass an order dated 10.12.2018 directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners and pass orders on merits. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have come with a contention that during the admission stage itself, the Original Application was disposed of without there being any formal request for a direction for consideration, on their behalf.

¶15

The petitioners have taken up a specific contention in the grounds appended to the writ petition to the effect that the Original Application was disposed of during the time of admission without there being any specific request for a direction to the respondents to consider the representations. According to the petitioners, the Tribunal has to decide the merits of the claim made by them as otherwise, they would not be given the benefit of age relaxation. The petitioners therefore, seek an order directing the Tribunal to consider the matter on merits.

¶16

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

The question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of age relaxation meant for the Meritorious Sports Persons in accordance with the notification dated 20 August 2018 is a contentious issue

¶18

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

¶19

before the Tribunal. There is no point in directing the authorities to consider the representations without there being a factual adjudication of the right claimed by the petitioners. It is more so, on account of the fact that by the time the matter is considered by the respondents, the very selection would be over. We are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have considered the matter on merits.

¶20

The order dated 10 December 2018 is set aside. We direct the respondents to file counter affidavit on or before 12 July 2019. The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the Original Application as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, on or before 20 September 2019.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
1. The Secretary to
Government (DP &AR),
Government of Puducherry,
Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry.
2. The Inspector General of Police,
Police Department,
Puducherry.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Headquarters, Police Department,
Puducherry.
4. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
Chennai.
W.P.No.2328 of 2019
A.SK(18/06/2019)

¶23

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

S.Subasree v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Subasree v. Union of India

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

The Senior Regional Manager Vs K.Kumar

G.Sampathkumar I.P.S., Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.(Lt) K.Rajakumar Vs the Govt of Tamilnadu

M.Sivaprakasam, Vs the Joint Registrar of

M.Sivaprakasam, Vs the Joint Registrar of

Union of India Vs The Registrar