Dismissed

M.Panneer, v. the Chairman

Madras HC26 Jul 2019WP(MD)/13823/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a direction to verify certificates via a call letter for a recruitment post was dismissed. The Court held that due to the efflux of time, the petitioner could not be considered, and called letters are not issued in a routine manner without verification of applications during the recruitment cycle.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without costs; the petitioner is at liberty to participate in future selection processes.

M.Panneer, Vs the Chairman — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.07.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD) No.13823 of 2012

M.Panneer

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4^th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶6

... Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue call letter for verification of the certificates of the petitioner in pursuance to the advertisement No.3/2012, dated 28.02.2012 for the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Economics) for the year 2011-2012 by considering the representation of the petitioner sent by telegram dated 26.10.2012.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balasundharam For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is for a direction to direct the respondent to issue call letter for verification of certificates of the writ petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement No.3/2012, dated 28.02.2012 for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Economics) for the year 2011-2012.

¶11

2.On account of efflux of time, the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered. This apart, the Court cannot issue any direction to issue call letter to the writ petitioner. Call letters are to be issued based on the recruitment notification, after verifying the eligibility of the candidates based on the applications submitted. Thus, directions to issue call letter cannot be issued in a routine manner. Only in the event of satisfying the eligibility and where there is a denial of issuance by the authorities, then alone, the cause would arise.

¶12

3.This apart, the recruitment notification was issued on 28.02.2012 and selection would have been completed and selected candidates may be working in the said post. After this length of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

time, the relief as such sought for to issue call letter to the writ petitioner cannot be considered. However, the mode of selection itself underwent changes and now, appointments to the post of Post Graduate Assistant are made through Teachers Recruitment Board and by way of open competitive process.

¶14

4.This being the procedures to be followed, the writ petitioner is at liberty to participate in the forthcoming selection process, if any recruitment notification is issued by the competent authorities.

¶15

5.With these observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶16

Assistant Registrar (Cs-II)

¶17

// True Copy //

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶19

¶20

The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4^th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶21

+1 CC to Mr.K.BAALASUNDHARAM, Advocate SR-78138.

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.13823 of 2012 26.07.2019

¶23

CS(08.08.2019) 2P 3C

¶24

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

M.Panneer, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Panneer, v. the Chairman

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

R.Kasimuthuveerapandian, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M. Baskaran, Vs the Secretary

K. Soundaramoorthi, Vs the Principal Secretary to the

P. Muniammal, Vs the Director of Elementary

C.S. Shanthi, Vs the President

M. Sankar, Vs the Secretary