Disposed

R.Raveendran, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Madras HC20 Feb 2023WP/1375/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking alteration of date of birth in service records, the court noted a parallel pendency of an appeal before the higher authority. It directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal within four weeks and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to dispose of the pending appeal within four weeks; Writ Petition disposed of.

R.Raveendran, Vs The Additional Chief Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.1375 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.1375 of 2016

R.Raveendran

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Additional Chief Secretary/ The Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 05.

¶11

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 06.

¶12

3.The Joint Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 06.

¶13

4.The Chief Education Officer, Cuddalore. ...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings Letter No.Vaa.Nee.3(3)/12004/2012 dated 09.03.2015 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.1375 of 2016

¶18

1772/A3/2009 dated 31.07.2015 and quash the same and direct the respectfully to correct the date of birth as 13.07.1964 instead of 18.05.1963 based on the Elementary School certificate and the same may be entered in the Service Register.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Anandan

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Rajangam, Government Advocate

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Mr.R.S.Anandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶23

Mr.T.M.Rajangam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶24

The petitioner's request for alteration of his Date of Birth in the service register was rejected by the fourth respondent through the proceedings dated 31.07.2015, wherein a reference has been made to the communication of the first respondent herein dated 09.03.2015.

¶25

As against the order passed by the fourth respondent on 31.07.2015,

¶26

the petitioner had preferred an appeal on 03.10.2015 before the first respondent, which is said to be still pending. While the appeal before the statutory authority is pending for the same cause of action, this Court, 2/4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.1375 of 2016

¶29

exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not parallely proceed with the present Writ Petition for the same cause of action. Nevertheless, if the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within a stipulated time, the ends of justice could be secured.

¶30

In the light of the above observation, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to dispose of the petitioner's appeal petition dated 03.10.2015, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already disposed of. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶31

20.02.2023

¶32

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

W.P.No.1375 of 2016

M.S.RAMESH,J.

hvk

1.The Additional Chief Secretary/ The Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 05.

¶40

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 06.

¶41

3.The Joint Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 06.

¶42

4.The Chief Education Officer, Cuddalore.

¶43

W.P.No.1375 of 2016

¶44

20.02.2023

¶45

4/4

¶46

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

R.Raveendran, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Raveendran, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

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

R.Nelson Jerome Vs The Director General of Police

S.Murugan, Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government

C.Krishnan, Village Vs The Secretary to Government

V.Kannapurakannan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.Siva, Vs The Superintendent of Police

M.Pappathi Vs The Chief Medical Officer