A.Christopher Immanuel v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 30.01.2025 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN W.P.No.3341 of 2025 & W.M.P.No.3708 of 2025 A.Christopher Immanuel
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu Home (Transort -II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009
2. The Transport Commissioner, Commissionerate of Transport and Road Safety, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner as Regional Transport Officer with appropriate seniority in terms of the proposal of the 2nd respondent in letter R.No.24921/T2/2023 dated 28.09.2024 within the time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kannankumar For Respondents : Mr.Abishekmurthy Government Advocate Page 1 / 5
O R D E R
The present Writ Petition has been filed for an issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner as Regional Transport Officer with appropriate seniority in terms of the proposal of the 2nd respondent in letter R.No.24921/T2/2023 dated 28.09.2024 within the time frame.
2. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner are as follows:- The petitioner at present is working as Personal Assistant to RTO. The personal assistants to RTO were given promotion in the Ratio of 1/5th post. The petitioner fully qualified to be promoted to the post of RTO. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.534, Home (Tr.11) Department Dated 24.09.2024 whereby orders were issued to fill up RTOs by including personal assistants and Serial No.35 was kept vacant, which is meant for the petitioner. The 2nd respondent forwarded the proposal by letter dated 28.09.2024 to the 1st respondent to include the name of the petitioner along with another person and reiterated to include the petitioner as per seniority. However, the proposal was kept pending and orders of RTO Appointment are likely to be issued at any time, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one Muthulakshmi, the similarly placed person like that of the petitioner, who is Page 2 / 5
placed at Sl.No.40 has approached this Court and this Court by an order dated 23.01.2025 directed the 1st respondent to pass orders on the proposal of the 2nd respondent dated 28.09.2024 within a period of 8 weeks. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no charges pending against him, thereby pleaded to consider the case of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contend that it would suffice if this Court issues a direction to the respondents to consider the proposal of the 2nd respondent dated 28.09.2024 and pass orders.
5. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, who would submit that they would consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.09.2024, wherein the petitioner has sought to take note of the proposal of the 2nd respondent dated 28.09.2024 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Page 3 / 5
In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
30.01.2025 Index : Yes / No;
Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssd To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu Home (Transort -II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009
2. The Transport Commissioner, Commissionerate of Transport and Road Safety, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032 Page 4 / 5
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN , J.
ssd W.P.No.3341 of 30.01.2025 Page 5 / 5