Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Since the said representation is now pending on the file of thethird respondent and there is vacancy available, which is also reserved,without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the WritPetition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent toconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 15
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 2222. Seeking the said relief, the petitioner has submitted arepresentation on 15.06.2010 to the third respondent, which was received by the third respondent on 18.06.2010.3. Since the said representation is now pending on the file of the third respondent and there is vacancy available, which…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 14.03.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P.(MD).No.677 of 2011and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011P.Gurusamy : PetitionerVs.
The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Fort. St.George, Chennai 600 009.
The Director of Higher Education Department,' College Road, Chennai 600 006.
The Chairman, Teachers' Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai 600 006. : RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to give weight age marks to the petitioner on the basis of his higher qualification of Ph.D., in Public Administration by considering his rectified Decree Certificate issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University on11.06.2010 and consequently call for the petitioner for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Public Administration in the Tamil NaduCollegiate Educational Service for the year 2010 to serve in GovernmentArts and Science College in Tamil Nadu. For Petitioner: Mr.R.SurianarayananFor Respondents: Mr.R.AnantharajGovernment Advocate
O R D E R***********The prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamusdirecting the third respondent to give weight age marks to the petitioner on the basis of his higher qualification of Ph.D., in PublicAdministration by considering his rectified Decree Certificate issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University on 11.06.2010 and consequently call for the petitioner for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Public Administration in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for the year 2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Operative part
Seeking the said relief, the petitioner has submitted arepresentation on 15.06.2010 to the third respondent, which was received by the third respondent on 18.06.2010.3. Since the said representation is now pending on the file of the third respondent and there is vacancy available, which is also reserved, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the WritPetition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.06.2010 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(RTI)/True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)To1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Fort. St.George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of Higher Education Department,' College Road, Chennai 600 006.3.The Chairman, Teachers' Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai 600 006.ORDER MADE INW.P.(MD).No.677 of 201114.03.2012ka/03/04/2012/2p-4c
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Since the said representation is now pending on the file of thethird respondent and there is vacancy available, which is also reserved,without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the WritPetition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent toconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 15
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.