Disposed

G.Punitha, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC1 Nov 2023WP/17161/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to consider her for appointment as a Lab Technician Grade III by relaxing the maximum age limit. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous after the Government relaxed the age limit post-filing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as the relief sought became infructuous due to the Government relaxing the maximum age limit.

G.Punitha, Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.17161 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶6

Writ Petition.No.17161 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

G.Punitha ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State of Tamilnadu rep.,by The Secretary to Government

¶10

Health & Family Welfare (C2) Department,

¶11

Secretariat, Chennai.

¶12

The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

¶13

3.The Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicines, Chennai-6.

¶14

The Medical Services Recruitment Board Rep., the Member Secretary, DMS Building,

¶15

Annasalai, Teynapet, Chennai.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of he Constitution of India, seeking writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lab Technician Grade III, and appoint the petitioner in the vacancies notified by the 4^th respondent in Tentative List dated nil if the petitioner is otherwise eligible without rejecting the petitioner claim on the basis of the maximum age limit as the prescription of the

¶18

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

¶19

1/4

¶20

W.P.No.17161 of 2015

¶21

maximum age limit is unconstitutional and ultravires.

¶22

For Petitioner : M/s.Aravinth Vivek P.A for M/s.M.Srividhya For Respondents : Mr.M.Murali for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr.L.Murugavelu for Respondent No.4

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus directing the

¶25

respondents to consider the petitioner for the appointment to the post of Lab Technician Grade III by relaxing the age limit.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that subsequent to filing of writ petition, Government has issued G.O, enhancing the age limit for recruitment to the post of Lab Technician Grade III from 32 to 57 for all the categories other than General Quota.

¶27

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 are present.

¶28

Since, the prayer sought for in this writ petition has become

¶29

infructuous, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ petition.

¶30

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

¶31

2/4

¶32

W.P.No.17161 of 2015

¶33

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as the relief

¶34

sought for has become infructuous. No costs.

¶35

01.11.2023

¶36

jai Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶37

¶38

1.State of Tamilnadu rep.,by The Secretary to Government Health & Family Welfare (C2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶39

The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

¶40

3.The Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicines, Chennai-6.

¶41

The Medical Services Recruitment Board Rep., the Member Secretary, DMS Building, Annasalai, Teynapet, Chennai.

¶42

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

¶43

3/4

¶44

W.P.No.17161 of 2015

¶45

Dr.D. NAGARJUN, J.

jai

WP.No.17161 of 2015

01.11.2023

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

¶50

4/4

G.Punitha, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Punitha, v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

Dr.T.Mytily Vs The Principal Secretary

S.Ezhil Royan Emmanuel, Vs The Chief Educational Officer

K.Pramila Devi Vs the Commissioner

R.Padmanadhan, Vs Tamilnadu State Transport

M.Selvam, Driver (EDP.No.7037) Vs The Managing Director

V.Ramachandran Vs Cbm College