Disposed

P.S.Jyothi Murugan v. The Principal Director of

Madras HC6 Dec 2022WP/36927/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition where a petitioner failed to get a job representation considered. The Court granted liberty to file a fresh representation and directed respondents to decide within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file fresh representation; respondents directed to consider it and pass orders within eight weeks.

P.S.Jyothi Murugan Vs The Principal Director of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.36927 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.36927 of 2016

P.S.Jyothi Murugan

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Principal Director of Highways Department, PWD Complex, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 5.

¶11

2.The Joint Director (Admin), O/o Principal Director of Highways Department, PWD Complex, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 5.

¶12

3.The Divisional Manager (Highways), Investigation Division, Madurai Division, Villapuram, Madurai - 12.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 08.05.2016 within a reasonable time frame.

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.36927 of 2016

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For Respondents : Mr.M.Shahjahan, Special Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner herein had given a representation on 08.05.2016 to the respondents requesting them to permit him to join duty as Assistant Draughtsman. Since the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶21

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶22

Since the representation given by the petitioner dates back to the year 2016, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be granted liberty to

¶23

2/4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.36927 of 2016

¶26

give a fresh representation, with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the same, thereby securing the ends of justice.

¶27

In the light of the above observations, the petitioner is granted liberty to give a fresh representation to the respondents herein, along with a copy of the earlier representation dated 08.05.2016, ventilating his grievances. On receipt of such a representation, the respondents shall consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and it is open to the respondents to consider it on its own merits.

¶28

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶29

costs.

¶30

06.12.2022

¶31

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No hvk

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/4

W.P.No.36927 of 2016

M.S.RAMESH,J.

hvk

1.The Principal Director of Highways Department, PWD Complex, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 5.

¶39

2.The Joint Director (Admin), O/o Principal Director of Highways Department, PWD Complex, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 5.

¶40

3.The Divisional Manager (Highways), Investigation Division, Madurai Division, Villapuram, Madurai - 12.

¶41

W.P.No.36927 of 2016

¶42

06.12.2022

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

4/4

P.S.Jyothi Murugan v. The Principal Director of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Jyothi Murugan v. The Principal 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

B.Chandramohan Vs The Chief Secretary

M.Lakshmanan, Vs The Registrar of Trade Union

S.Vellathal Vs The Government

V.K.Kaliappan Vs The Managing Director

Mrs.Baladevi Vs The Director

M.Murali Babu Vs Thiru.J.Radhakrishnan IAS