M.Sundaravel, v. The Director of Social Defence
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madras High Court quashed orders rejecting former juvenile inmates from observation homes for Group C/D posts due to age limits and certificate discrepancies. Emphasizing the Director's duty to rehabilitate, the Court directed re-examination and appointment consideration within 16 weeks.
What did the court decide?
Impugned orders set aside; respondent directed to re-examine cases and appoint petitioners to Group C/D posts within 16 weeks.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.Nos.24324 & 24325 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.25733 & 25734 of 2017
M. Sundaravel .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24324 of 2017 B. Umashankar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24325 of 2017
Vs.
The Director of Social Defence, Purasaiwalkam High Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 010. .. Respondent in both W.Ps
Prayer in W.P.No.24324 of 2017: 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 proceedings issued in No.6815/A3/2017-1 dated 09.05.2017 passed by the respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as last grade servant, as if done in the case of others.
Prayer in W.P.No.24325 of 2017: 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 proceedings issued in
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether impugned orders rejecting applicants from Children Observation Homes on grounds of age and community certificate are maintainable under Article 226.
Whether the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 mandates age relaxation and employment preference for ex-inmates of observation homes as a measure of rehabilitation.
Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside administrative rejections to direct the respondent to re-examine applications and assign posts.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M. Sundaravel
- petitioner
B. Umashankar
- respondent
The Director of Social Defence
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court