N.Soundararani v. The District Library Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.02.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.No.21092 of 2011 N.Soundararani ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Library Officer, District Library Office, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.

2.The Director of Public Libraries, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant from 27.12.1996 and for the post of Superintendent from 09.04.2003.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan for M/s.B.Balavijayan For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

Heard Mr.P.Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief, "To issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant from 27.12.1996 and for the post of Superintendent from 09.04.2003."

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- The petitioner was appointed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Junior Assistant in the year 1989. The petitioner completed her probationary period on 22.04.1991 successfully. She was promoted as Assistant on 18.02.2000. On being promoted, she was posted in the first respondent Office.

4. According to the petitioner, though she was fully qualified to be promoted as Assistant on 19.11.1992, but, she was promoted only in 2000, after the delay of eight years. According to the petitioner, most of her juniors who joined in the respective post after her appointment were considered and promoted. If the petitioner had been appointed as Assistant in 1992, she would have been further promoted to the post of Superintendent earlier in 2003, along with some of her batch mates.

5. In the said circumstances, she seems to have sent a representation dated 09.06.2011, followed by a reminder dated 21.06.2011 to the second respondent. But, the second respondent has not taken any action on the representations. Therefore, she is before this Court, seeking a issue of Writ of Mandamus to the respondents.

6. Upon notice, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has entered appearance and filed a detailed counter affidavit.

7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he would be satisfied, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the aforementioned representation within the stipulated time by this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would have no objection for such limited prayer being pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the representations said to have been made by the petitioner on 09.06.2011 and 21.06.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any decision taken by the second respondent shall be communicated to the petitioner.

9. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- ASST. REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST. REGISTRAR gsk To 1.The District Library Officer, District Library Office, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.

2.The Director of Public Libraries, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

+1 cc to the Government Pleader, High Court, Chennai SR.NO. 10647 +1 cc to Mr.B.Balavijayan, Advocate SR.NO. 10652 W.P.No.21092 of 2011 KJI(CO) JK 07/03/18