Disposed

M.Sadasivam, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Nov 2023WP/9581/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to direct authorities to consider the petitioner's representation for a vacant part-time Drawing Master post via reservation. Court directed lower authorities to review his representation within eight weeks regarding existing vacancies. Petition disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to fourth and fifth respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 7/6/2012 as early as possible, not later than eight weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.

M.Sadasivam, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.9581 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 10/11/2023

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

Writ Petition No.9581 of 2015 a n d M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

M. Sadasivam ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Principal Secretary School Education Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

¶10

The Director of School Education College Road Chennai 600 006.

¶11

The Chief Educational Officer Namakkal District Namakkal.

¶12

The District Elementary Educational Officer Namakkal District Namakkal.

¶13

The Namakkal District Assistant Project Officer Education for All Namakkal Namakkal District. ... Respondents

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

W.P.No.9581 of 2015

¶17

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶18

for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Drawing Master on part time basis in existing vacancies in Government High Schools in Namakkal District by following the reservation for Arunthathiar Community as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.50 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (TD2) Department dated 29/4/2009 and G.O.Ms.No.61 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (TD2) Department dated 29/5/2009 and to appoint the petitioner as Drawing Master on part time basis with service and monetary benefits.

¶19

For petitioner ... Mr.R.Saseetharan For respondents ... Ms.M.Jayanthy Additional Government Pleader - - - - -

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Drawing Master on part time basis in existing vacancies in Government High Schools in Namakkal District by

¶22

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

¶23

2/6

¶24

W.P.No.9581 of 2015

¶25

following the reservation for Arunthathiar Community as prescribed in

¶26

G.O.Ms.No.50 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (TD2) Department dated 29/4/2009 and G.O.Ms.No.61 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (TD2) Department dated 29/5/2009 and to appoint the petitioner as Drawing Master on part time basis with service and monetary benefits.

¶27

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not followed the scheme of reservation, as prescribed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Hence the petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition.

¶28

Heard Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.M.Jayanthi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶29

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

¶30

post of part time Drawing Master in the District Government Schools, Namakkal District are vacant. Three posts for Drawing Master have to be filled by the SC & ST Community. The petitioner who belongs to SC

¶31

& ST Community, was interviewed for the post of Drawing Master. 3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.9581 of 2015

¶34

After recruitment process, he was not selected, but still vacancy exists.

¶35

Hence, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 7/6/2012 to the respondents. Since there was no response, the petitioner has come approached this Court.

¶36

Ms.M.Jayanthy, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶37

representing the respondents submitted that rule of reservations have been correctly followed for the appointment of Drawing Master on part time basis and after completion of selection process, no vacancy was left over and the petitioner during the course of selection process got the lower place and therefore, as he has not come under the zone of consideration, the petitioner was not selected.

¶38

Be that as it may, the petitioner has filed a representation before

¶39

the respondents to appoint him for the post of Drawing Master on part time basis. The respondents Department should have replied suitably explaining as to why the petitioner was not selected. Further, this writ petition was filed in the year 2015 and sought for consideration of the representation of the petitioner in respect of the existing vacancies for

¶40

the year 2015. Now, 8 years have been passed. In view of the above, 4/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.9581 of 2015

¶43

fourth and fifth respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 7/6/2012 as early as possible, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, considering the existing vacancies, if any.

¶44

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No

¶45

costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

10/11/2023

mvs.

Index: Yes/No

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶50

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

5/6

W.P.No.9581 of 2015

Dr.D.NAGARJUN,J

mvs.

The Principal Secretary State of Tamil Nadu School Education Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

¶57

The Director of School Education College Road Chennai 600 006.

¶58

The Chief Educational Officer Namakkal District Namakkal.

¶59

The District Elementary Educational Officer Namakkal District Namakkal.

¶60

The Namakkal District Assistant Project Officer Education for All Namakkal Namakkal District.

¶61

W.P.No.9581 of 2015

¶62

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

6/6

W.P.No.9581 of 2015

10/11/2023

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

¶67

7/6

M.Sadasivam, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sadasivam, v. The 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Ravichandran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.P.Somasekaran, Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by

B.Hariharan Vs The Secretary to Govt. of

Syed Mazhar Hussain Vs Syed Latheef

P.Jaishankar, Vs the Additional Superintendent

M/S.Aziz Export, Vs the Presiding Officer