Disposed

S.Rajkumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Jan 2023WP/1371/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras held that non-consideration of a representation by a statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty. It directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's promotion claim referencing a specific prior judgment within four weeks without deciding the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding promotion within four weeks.

S.Rajkumar Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.1371 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.1371 of 2016 and WMP.No.1145 of 2016

S.Rajkumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶12

The Joint Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶13

The Chief Educational Officer, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District ... 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 promote the petitioner as B.T Assistant in English by including his name in the panel as on 01.01.2015 for promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant (English) at the appropriate place with all consequential service and

¶15

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

1/4

W.P.No.1371 of 2016

monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saseetharan For Respondents : Mr.T.Chezhiyan AGP

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner herein had given representation to the respondents on

¶22

29.10.2015, seeking for a direction to promote him as B.T Assistant in English, by including his name in the panel as on 01.01.2015 at the appropriate place with all consequential service and monetary benefits. Since the said representation was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed

¶23

2. It is needless to point out that whenever representation of this

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

2/4

¶27

W.P.No.1371 of 2016

¶28

226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a

¶29

stipulated time.

¶30

In view of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the

¶31

third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.10.2015, taking into consideration the decision reported in (2015) 1 MLJ 410 in the case of C. Dharuman and Others vs Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary to Government and others (W.P.No.28172 of 2013) on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner and that it is open to the respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

¶32

4 . With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed

¶33

of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

09.01.2023

¶35

Speaking/Non-speaking Index:Yes/No sr

¶36

M.S.RAMESH,J.

¶37

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

3/4

W.P.No.1371 of 2016

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶43

The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶44

The Joint Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶45

The Chief Educational Officer, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District

¶46

W.P.No.1371 of 2016

¶47

09.01.2023

¶48

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

¶49

4/4

S.Rajkumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajkumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I.K.Kanniappan Vs Tamil nadu generation and

E.Anbu Vs Thiru. Arjunan

A.Arumugam Vs The Managing Director

S.Radhakrishnan, Vs The District Collector

G.Deenadayalan Vs Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut

Patan Sahebjan, Vs The Union of India