The court directed the State Express Transport Corporation to consider the petitioner representation dated 02.04.2024 regarding his candidature for a Driver-cum-conductor post within eight weeks, declaring non-consideration as dereliction of duty.
Direction to second respondent to consider petitioner representation within eight weeks.
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.
WP(MD) No.11544 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.(MD) No.11544 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.10289 of 2024
Regunathan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Managing Director
State Express Transport Corporation (SETC) Tamilnadu Ltd, No.2, Pallavan Salai, Thiruvalluvar House, Chennai - 600 002. ...Respondents
1/8
WP(MD) No.11544 of 2024
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Driver-cum-conductor (DCC) based on his qualification and his marks obtained in the written and practical examinations held vide the 2nd respondent's notification No.01/SETC/2023 and to permit the petitioner to participate in the next level of selection process so as to enable him to get appointment to post of Drivercum-Conductor (DCC) by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.04.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai – for R1 Special Government Pleader Mr.S.C.Herold Singh – for R2
2/8
WP(MD) No.11544 of 2024
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ
of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Driver-cum-conductor (DCC) based on his qualification and his marks obtained in the written and practical examinations held vide the 2nd respondent's notification No.01/SETC/2023 and to permit the petitioner to participate in the next level of selection process so as to enable him to get appointment to the post of Driver-cum-Conductor (DCC) by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.04.2024.
2 . Heard Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3/8
WP(MD) No.11544 of 2024
3 . By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken
up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
4 . The petitioner herein had given a representation to
the second respondent on 02.04.2024 seeking to consider his qualification and the marks obtained by him in the examination held on 19.11.2023, vide second respondent's notification No. 01/SETC/2023 and to provide appointment for the post of Driver cum Conductor. Since the said representation was not considered by the respondents so far, the present writ petition has been filed.
5 . It is needless to point out that whenever a
representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to
4/8
WP(MD) No.11544 of 2024
dereliction of duty. The failure on the part of the authority had prompted the petitioner to file this petition for seeking relief through issuance of Writ of Mandamus. As the petitioner has made out a case for invoking the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respondents are required to be given with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner within a specified time frame.
6 . In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the second respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.04.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it is open to the second respondent to consider the same on its own merits.
5/8
WP(MD) No.11544 of 2024
7 . With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.06.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM
6/8
WP(MD) No.11544 of 2024
To
7/8
WP(MD) No.11544 of 2024
R.N.MANJULA, J.
RM
Order made in W.P.(MD)No.11544 of 2024
Dated: 03.06.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether statutory authority is under a duty to consider a petitioners representation regarding job appointment.
If so, what is the appropriate relief to ensure such consideration within a specified time frame
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Regunathan
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department
The Managing Director State Express Transport Corporation (SETC) Tamilnadu Ltd
R.N. Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
