Disposed

Jeyasankar.G v. The Union of India

Madras HC21 Nov 2022WP(MD)/18116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition seeking promotion干扰 as the petitioner's request had already been rejected by a fresh order dated 17.08.2022. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging that rejection order, as contained in the impugned judgment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition questioning the rejection order dated 17.08.2022. All contentions are left open. No costs.

Jeyasankar.G Vs The Union of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.18116 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18116 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)No.13215 of 2022

¶7

G.Jeyasankar ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Union of India, Represented by The Secretary,

¶10

Ministry of Port, Shipping and Waterways, Paivahan Bhawan,

¶11

No.1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶12

2.The Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms), 5^th Floor, Sardar Patel Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶13

3.The Director, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and Training), North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶14

4.The Chairman,

¶15

V.O.Chidambaranar Port Authority,

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P(MD)No.18116 of 2022

¶19

(Previously called as V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust), Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 629 004.

¶20

5.The Deputy Conservator, V.O.Chidambaranar Port Authority, (Previously called as V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust), Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 629 004.

¶21

6.The Tuticorin Port Trust Board, Represented by The Chairman, Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 629 004.

¶22

7.G.Jesudoss Livingston ... Respondents

¶23

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 4 and 5 from giving promotion to G.Jesudoss Livingston / seventh respondent either in the post of “Assistant Fire Officer” or any other promotion post as his earlier promotion to the post of “Leading Fireman” was wrongly given and by violating rules and reservation norms as well as against the Official Memorandum, dated 04.08.1980 vide No.14015/1/76-ESH.(D) of the second respondent and against the proceeding of office Memorandum, dated 26.07.2012 in F.No.14034/1/2012-ESH (D) of third respondent and also considering service of petitioner directing the respondents 4 and 5 to promote the petitioner to the post of “Assistant Fire Officer” in regular post by considering his representations dated 18.05.2022, 15.06.2022 and 11.07.2022.

¶24

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

¶25

2/6

¶26

W.P(MD)No.18116 of 2022

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.V.B.Sundhareshwar

¶29

Central Government Standing Counsel for R.1 to R.3

¶30

Mr.A.Arivuchandran for R.4 & R.6

¶31

Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for R.5

¶32

Mr.V.Panneer Selvam for R.7

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶35

When the matter was taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner’s request was rejected by the fifth respondent vide order dated 17.08.2022. The said rejection order came to be passed following the direction of this Court in W.P(MD)No.15335 of 2022 dated 14.07.2022. This writ petition has been filed before the rejection order was passed.

¶36

In these circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that he may be permitted to amend the writ petition. I am of the view, that since the rejection order has been passed it is better for the writ petitioner to file a fresh writ petition.

¶37

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

¶38

3/6

¶39

W.P(MD)No.18116 of 2022

¶40

In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition questioning the rejection order dated 17.08.2022. All the contentions of the writ petitioner are left open.

¶41

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

21.11.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No mga To

¶43

1.The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Port, Shipping and Waterways, Paivahan Bhawan, No.1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶44

2.The Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms), 5^th Floor, Sardar Patel Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶45

3.The Director, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and Training), North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶46

4.The Chairman, V.O.Chidambaranar Port Authority, (Previously called as V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust), Administrative Office,

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P(MD)No.18116 of 2022

¶50

Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 629 004.

¶51

5.The Deputy Conservator, V.O.Chidambaranar Port Authority, (Previously called as V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust), Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 629 004.

¶52

6.The Chairman, Tuticorin Port Trust Board, Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 629 004.

¶53

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

¶54

5/6

¶55

W.P(MD)No.18116 of 2022

¶56

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶57

mga

¶58

W.P(MD)No.18116 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)No.13215 of 2022

¶59

21.11.2022

¶60

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

¶61

6/6

Jeyasankar.G v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyasankar.G v. The Union of India

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

V. Jeyarajan Vs Samayamoorthy

T. Vimala Bai, Vs R. Alphonse

Suresh Kumar.N Vs The Chairman

B.D.Sriman Vs the Deputy Inspector General

Kannan.a Vs The Commissioner

Jeyamani .a Vs The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies