Petitioner sought appointment as Junior Training Officer, challenging G.O. restricting recruitment to NTC holders. Court noted similar petitions were dismissed based on precedent and that petitioner, aged 60, had waited too long, making relief infructuous. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.6952 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.6952 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2014
K.Annamalai
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chenani -9.
2.The Director/Commissioner, Directorate of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai -32.
3.The Director General of Employment and Training, Government of India, New Delhi.
4.The Secretary, National Council for Vocational Training, New Delhi. ...Respondents
1/4
W.P.No.6952 of 2014
Prayer :
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the 1st respondent's order made in G.O.Ms.No.288, Labour and Employment (P1) Department, dated 13.12.2013, quash the same insofar as Diploma Holders are concerned, prescribing the ratio of 1 : 1 at the entry level post of Junior Training Officer (JTO) and by confining only to National Trade Certificate (NTC) Holders and consequently, appoint the petitioner as Junior Training Officer forthwith and extend all benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandra Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Amnanda Kumar, Government Advocate
ORDER
When this matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of
this Court that the issue in this Writ Petition has already been dealt with in the case of A.Paneerselvam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others in W.P.No.5133 of 2014 and by order dated 14.02.2017, the claim of the petitioner was dismissed. Following the same, this Court by order dated 11.03.2022 in W.P.No.5324 and 5325 of 2014 in the case of R.Chettiyappan and another v.
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Labour & Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -09, had dismissed the Writ Petition.
2/4
W.P.No.6952 of 2014
2.In view of the issue having been considered and already dismissed, further taking note of the fact that the petitioner who is now aged about 60 years, has sought for appointment and as on date, the relief sought for has become infructuous, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
04.11.2024
Index :Yes/No Speaking order :Yes/No Neutral citation :Yes/No mps
To
1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chenani -9.
2.The Director/Commissioner, Directorate of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai -32.
3.The Director General of Employment and Training, Government of India, New Delhi.
4.The Secretary, National Council for Vocational Training, New Delhi.
3/4
W.P.No.6952 of 2014
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
mps
W.P.No.6952 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2014
04.11.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for appointment as Junior Training Officer is valid.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A. Paneerselvam v. The State of Tamil NaduReferred¶22
A.Paneerselvam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others in W.P.No.5133 of 2014
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Annamalai
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Director/Commissioner, Directorate of Employment and Training
The Director General of Employment and Training, Government of India
The Secretary, National Council for Vocational Training
G. Arul Murugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
