Disposed

C.Paulson v. the Joint Director of

Madras HC23 Nov 2020WP(MD)/4825/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of an order and appointment as a librarian. The High Court held that grievance issues were partly settled and allowed the petitioner to redress remaining issues via proper legal channels, thereby disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no costs awarded; petitioner at liberty to redress remaining grievances as known to law.

C.Paulson Vs the Joint Director of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.4825 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.11.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.4825 of 2011

C.Paulson

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Division,

¶11

Tirunelveli.

¶12

2.The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli – 12

¶13

Rep. by its Registrar.

¶14

3.Nesamony Memorial Christian College, Marthandam – 629 165,

¶15

Rep.by its Correspondent / Secretary,

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2^nd respondent, dated 15.03.2011 in No.: MSU/CD/NMC/QA/Librarian/2011 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to grant appointment and qualification approval respectively for the appointment of the petitioner C.Paulson, as librarian, in the 3^rd respondent College, in accordance with the proposal, dated 12.04.2010 in Reference No.CCM/2010:258 submitted by the 3^rd respondent College.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

¶19

For Respondent-1 : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶20

For Respondent-2 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff For M/s Ajmal Associates

¶21

For Respondent-3 : Mr.J.Ashok

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner made a submission that though the grievances are redressed, still the claim in entirety has not been settled, as far as the petitioner is concerned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

1/2

¶25

W.P.(MD)Nos.4825 of 2011

¶26

In view of the above fact that the grievances of the writ petitioner has partly been settled, if any grievance exists as of now, the petitioner is at liberty to redress the same in the manner known to law.

¶27

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

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

MPK

¶32

¶33

The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli.

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-22655[F] dated 24/11/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.N. DILIP KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-22717[F] dated 24/11/2020

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.4825 of 2011 23.11.2020

¶36

SV2(CO) TR(03.12.2020) 2P 4C

¶37

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

¶38

2/2

C.Paulson v. the Joint Director of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Paulson v. the Joint Director of

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

P. Kangaraj, Vs the District Collector

The Correspondent, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Thanesh Vs The Inspector of Police

A. Sunaikkili, Vs the District Eelemeentary

K. Uthami, Vs the Teachers Recruitment

Tmt. G. Lala Vs the Director of Collegiate