Disposed

M.K.Kanakaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC16 Sept 2021WP/5844/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for promotion as Assistant Manager with adjusted service seniority based on his part-time engineering degree, clarifying the validity of the degree under UGC guidelines. The matter is remitted for appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks regarding promotion with backdated seniority.

M.K.Kanakaraj Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.5844 of 2020 and WMP.No.6851 of 2020

¶6

M.K.Kanakaraj PR.No.J08317 Assistant Engineer / Branch Manager (Incharge) Office of Tamil Nadu State Transport Coporation Gobi Branch, Erode Regional Office, Erode. ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary, Trasnport Department

¶9

Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Coimbatore Head Office, Coimbatore.

¶11

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Erode Region, Erode.

¶12

The Chairman, University Grant Commission, Bahadurshah Dafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to promote the petitioner in the post of Assistant Manager by prefixing his service seniority by entering the petitioner's educational qualification in the service register i.e. November 2012 based on G.O.Ms.No.39 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(s) Department dated 30.04.2014,

¶14

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

¶15

G.O.Ms.No.65 Personnel and Administrative Reform(s) Department dated 02.07.2014 Clarfication letter dated 10.11.2014 in Letter 37149/S/2014-1 issued by Personnel and Administrative Reform(s) Department and the letter dated 03.10.2019 issued by the 4^th respondent with subsequent promotions all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner within the time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mohanaraja For Respondent No.1 : LSM Hasan Fizal Government Advocate

¶17

For Respondent Nos.2&3 : Mr.A.Sundaravadanan

¶18

For Respondent No.4 : Mr.V.Sudha Standing Counsel

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The fourth respondent has already clarified that Vinayaka Machinary foundation research, Salem, Tamil Nadu was entitled to run Bachelor of Engineering (Part time programme) through regular mode with the approval of AICTE wherever required and such Degreees, Diplomas, etc., of Bachelore of Engineering (Part time) programme awarded to the students was charged for pursuing higher Education, Employment and for all other purposes. The position has been re-affirmed by the fourth respondent in their counter affidavit filed in this writ petition. Para 7 of the counter reads as follows:-

¶21

“ It is respectfully submitted that subsequent to the above judgment and order of the Honourable Supreme Court a claification was issued by the UGC vide its letter dated 03.10.2019 that Vinayaka Mission's Reseach Foundation, Salem Tamil Nadu is entitled to run Bachelor of Engineering (part-time) programme though regular mode with the approval of AICE and such decreees) awarded to students are valid for pursuing further education employment and all other purposes. ”

¶22

Considering the above and in the light of G.O.M.S.No.39 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 30.04.2014, G.O.Ms.65 of Personal and Administrative Reforms Department on 02.07.2014 and clarification of the fourth respondent dated 10.11.2014, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the second and third respondents to consider

¶23

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

¶24

the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Transport Department Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶30

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Coimbatore Head Office, Coimbatore.

¶31

The General Manager, University Grant Commission BahadurshaDafarMarg New Delhi – 110 002.

¶32

The Chairman, University Grant Commission, Bahadurshah Dafar Marg, New Delhi – 100 002. +1cc to the Government pleader Sr.47517 +1cc to Mr.B.R.Mohana Raja, Advocate Sr.47623 +1cc ot Mr.V.Sudha, Advocate Sr.47356

¶33

W.P.No.5844 of 2020 and WMP.No.6851 of 2020

¶34

pa[co] srg 20/10/2021

¶35

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

M.K.Kanakaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Kanakaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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.Baskar Vs The Government of TamilNadu

N.R.Manoharan Vs The Managing Director

S.Gopal Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director

P.Dennison Vs The Director of Collegiate Education

P.Jeevitha Vs The District Collector

M.Murugan, Vs The Director, (Tasmac)