Dismissed

V.Jayaprakash v. the Chairman

Madras HC2 Aug 2023WP/4596/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing the respondent to dispose of a representation for appointing him as an Assistant Engineer pursuant to compensation for land acquisition. The Court dismissed the petition holding that recruitment powers do not rest with TANGEDCO but have been entrusted to the Public Service Commission.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stood dismissed. No costs awarded. Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

V.Jayaprakash Vs the Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.4596 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.4596 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.4728 of 2022

¶7

V.Jayaprakash ... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Chairman, TNEB, TANGEDCO Recruitment 2020, Anna Salai, Chennai. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus order or direction in the nature of a writ, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on merits by disposing the written representation made by the petitioner on 10.03.2020 within a stipulated time as this Court fixes.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.K.Rajkumar, Standing Counsel

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondent to

¶15

consider and pass order on merits by disposing the representation made by the petitioner on 10.03.2020.

¶16

Page No.1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.4596 of 2022

¶18

2.The case of the Writ Petitioner is that the land of the petitioner's family were acquired by the respondent in the year 2002 for construction of check dam in Nallathangal Odai, as per G.O.Ms.No.188, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 20.12.1976. On that score, the petitioner made a request to give priority appointment for the post of Assistant Engineer, however, the same has not been given. Hence, he has given representation, dated 10.03.2020, but the same has not been considered.

¶19

3.It is stated by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent in the counter that though the notification was issued by the respondent for filling up the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2022, subsequently, the Act No.14/2022 was passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu entrusting the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for recruiting certain posts in State owned Public Sector Undertakings, State Corporations, Statutory Boards and Authorities. Therefore, now, according to the respondent, it is now the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to conduct recruitment and the TANGEDCO has no power for recruitment. Further, it

¶20

Page No.2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.No.4596 of 2022

¶22

is stated in paragraph No.17 of the counter that if the recruitment for Assistant Engineer is notified by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, as per the priority quota, the petitioner will be considered if he is otherwise qualified.

¶23

4.In such view of the matter, as the recruitment process itself is not in the hands of the TANGEDCO, i t will not be appropriate for this Court to give any such direction to the respondent in this Writ Petition.

¶24

5.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶25

02.08.2023

¶26

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vv2 To

¶27

The Chairman, TNEB, TANGEDCO Recruitment 2020, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶28

Page No.3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.4596 of 2022

¶30

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. vv2

¶31

W.P.No.4596 of 2022

¶32

02.08.2023

¶33

Page No.4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V.Jayaprakash v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Jayaprakash v. the Chairman

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

S.Naveen Vs The District Collector

E.Thanappan Vs The Chief Engineer / Personal

Mr. K.Senthilkumar Vs TamilNadu State Transport corporation

K.C.Ravichandran Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

V.Jaisankar Vs Director of Medical Education

M.Vinayagamurthy Vs the State Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary Cum Home