← Library
Madras High CourtWP/19420/2023disposed of

C.Dharmaraj , B.E. v. The Engineer In Chief (Wro)

2023-07-03Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR WP.No.19420 of 2023 C.Dharmaraj ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Engineer in Chief [WRO]and Chief Engineer [General], Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2. The Chief Engineer Buildings, Madurai P.W.D. Compound, Madurai - 2.

... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed, under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.10.2022 as Assistant Engineer by recruitment by transfer with effect from 20.09.2009 instead of 2014 as per Honourable Supreme Court's Order in SLP Nos.19807 and 19808 of 2012 dated 03.11.2017 and as per the 1/5

clarifications issued by the A.I.C.T.E. Dated 19.09.2022 and to pass such further or other appropriate Order as this Court deems fit and necessary. For Petitioner : Mrs.Malarvizhi Udayakumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.10.2022 as Assistant Engineer by recruitment by transfer with effect from 20.09.2009 instead of 2014 as per Honourable Supreme Court's Order in SLP Nos.19807 and 19808 of 2012 dated 03.11.2017 and as per the clarifications issued by the A.I.C.T.E. Dated 19.09.2022 and to pass appropriate Order.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 07.07.2014. But he was eligible to be considered for promotion on the date of degree as per the Orders of the Apex Court in SLP Nos.19807 and 19808 of 2012, dated 03.0.2017. Therefore, he 2/5

has given a representation on 07.10.2022 to the respondents to appoint him as Assistant Engineer from 2009 and the same has not been considered by the respondents. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no proof that the representation of the petitioner reached the first respondent.

4. Heard Ms.Malarvizhi Udayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Baladhandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. Considering the submissions of either side, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation to the first respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and on such representation being given, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate Order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter. 3/5

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

03.07.2023 Index:Yes/No vrc To,

1. The Engineer in Chief [WRO]and Chief Engineer [General], Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2. The Chief Engineer Buildings, Madurai P.W.D. Compound, Madurai - 2.

4/5

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

vrc WP.No.19420 of 2023 03.07.2023 5/5