S.Kalarani, Vs the Secretary to Government

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records

¶25

1/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.24353 of 2013

¶28

relating to the proceedings of the District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri the second Respondent herein made in Ve.vu.Nee1/1536/2013 dated 22.04.2013 quash the same and direct the second Respondent herein to sponsor the name of the Petitioner to the third Respondent for eventual notional appointment to the post of clerk in any of the societies coming under his control if necessary by relaxing the rules if any in her favour from the date on which her junior in terms of employment registration was appointed with all consequential continuity of service and all attendant monetary benefits and disburse all the arrears within a short date that may be fixed by this court.

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajkumar

¶30

For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthuswamy

¶31

Government Advocate

¶32

ORDER

¶33

An identical case came to be disposed of by this Court in W.P.No.24352 of 2013.

¶34

In the present case, the Petitioner had registered with the 2^nd

¶35

Respondent Employment Exchange Board as early as 20.09.1990. After

¶36

obtaining relevant qualification in the year 1990 in Diploma in Cooperation.

¶37

2/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.24353 of 2013

¶40

The case of the Petitioner is that despite the Petitioner having

¶41

registered with the 2^nd Respondent as early as 20.09.1990, the Petitioner was overlooked and was not sponsored by the 2^nd Respondent to the vacant posts under the Co-operative Service under the jurisdiction of the 3^rd Respondent.

¶42

In Paragraph No.8 of the Affidavit, the Petitioner has stated that

¶43

more than 10 persons who had obtained their diploma after the Petitioner and were juniors to the Petitioner were employed by the 2^nd Respondent overlooking the Petitioner despite the Petitioner being senior in age.

¶44

It is noticed from the preamble of the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition that the petitioner was aged about 45 years at the time of filing of the Writ Petition. Since 12 years have passed during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner would be 57 years as on date.

¶45

The Petitioner ought to have expedited the present Writ proceedings as the chances for getting employed in Government service would reduce due to the age criteria. However, the Petitioner cannot be

¶46

3/6

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.24353 of 2013

¶49

fully blamed for the delay on account of the pendency of this Writ Petition, as it also the failure on the part of the system to taken up the case for hearing at an early date.

¶50

Even in the Counter Affidavit filed by the 2^nd Respondent in this Writ Petition, the 2^nd Respondent has not categorically denied the case of the Petitioner except to blatantly state that vacancies in the 3^rd Respondent Society arose on various dates and that only Petitioner's seniors were sponsored.

¶51

The arguments made on behalf of the Respondents are not convincing. Under these circumstances, the 2^nd Respondent is directed to sponsor the name of the Petitioner to any of the post that may be available with the 3^rd Respondent Society. This exercise shall be completed by the Respondents within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52