← Library
Madras High CourtWP/12365/2013disposed of

P.Velmurugan,S/O.Periavan v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By The

2020-07-08Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE : 08.07.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P. No. 12365 of 2013 P.Velmurugan .. Petitioner - Vs -

1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Secretary, Information and Public Relation Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2. The Director, Information and Public Relation Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

3. The Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education, Southern Region, Shastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

4. The Director of Technical Education (DoTE) Guindy, Chennai 600 025.

5. The Principal, M.G.R. Government Film and Television Institute, C.I.T. Campus, Tharamani, Chennai 600013.

6. Sri Ramasamy Subramani, Academic Incharge, M.G.R. Government Film and Television Institute, C.I.T. Campus, Tharamani, Chennai 600013.

.. Respondents (R-3 deleted as party respondent vide order of court of even date) Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling the records of 5th respondent pertaining to his order of appointment made to the 6th respondent to the post of Academic Incharge vide Ku.Aa.No.501/e1/2013 dated 11.03.2013 and quash the same, consequent to direct the 5th respondent to

appoint the Petitioner to the said post.

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Malaichamy For Respondents: Mr. A.N.Thambidurai, Spl.GP for RR1,2,4,5, &6 : Mrs. A.L.Ganthimathi for R3

ORDER

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits the 6th respondent has since been promoted to the higher post and, the post for which the relief has been sought for is vacant. Therefore, it would be suffice, if the petitioner is permitted to submit a representation before the 2nd respondent, and on such representation being filed, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law within a reasonable time fixed by this Court.

2. On the above contention, this Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who have no objection.

3. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the petitioner to submit a representation to the 2nd respondent, and on such representation being filed, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the representation made by the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jrs/GLN To

1. The Secretary, Information and Public Relation Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director, Information and Public Relation Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

3.The Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education, Southern Region, Shastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

4.The Director of Technical Education (DoTE) Guindy, Chennai 600 025.

5.The Principal, M.G.R. Government Film and Television Institute, C.I.T. Campus, Tharamani, Chennai 600013.

6.Sri Ramasamy Subramani, Academic Incharge, M.G.R. Government Film and Television Institute, C.I.T. Campus, Tharamani, Chennai 600013. W.P. NO.12365 OF 2013 PP(CO) RMP(19/11/2020)