P.Malarkodi, v. The Director,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.2256 of 2018 P.Malarkodi .. Petitioner Vs
1. The Director, Social Welfare and Nutrition Department, Office of the Social Welfare and Nutrition Department, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.
2. The District Collector, Collectorate, Nagapattinam 3.The Child Development Scheme Officer, Office of the Child Development Scheme, Nagapattinam.
.. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2017 by fixing a time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2017.
2. The case of the petitioner is that when the notification was issued by the District Collector, Nagapattinam, the second respondent herein, calling for the post of Anganwadi Assistant through the news paper, the petitioner applied for the said post. The third respondent also sent a call letter to the petitioner asking the petitioner to appear for interview on 20.11.2014. When the petitioner appeared before the second respondent office on the said date, he was informed that there would be no interview as there was stay by this Court against the interview and the authorities also informed that fresh interview would be conducted after sending call letters for the aspirants and they also stated that interview would be conducted after stay is vacated.
The respondents once again issued notification calling for the Anganwadi Employees in Dinakaran Tamil Daily. On seeing this, the petitioner approached the third respondent and asked him whether he had to submit a fresh application, for which the third respondent informed him not to submit fresh application, as he had already applied and call letter would be sent to the people who applied earlier. On believing the words of the third respondent,the petitioner had not submitted new application. In the meanwhile, the respondents conducted interview on 04.09.2017, without sending any call letter to the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation on 25.10.2017, to the respondents to consider his application and to provide him a job taking into consideration of his age factor.
Since, no response is forthcoming from the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for two reasons, firstly, when the notification which was issued in the year 2014 was cancelled due to various irregularities taken place and a fresh notification was also issued through the news paper in the year 2017, for which unfortunately, the petitioner has not responded to the same. Secondly, when the subsequent notification was issued by the respondents in the year 2017 and the same has been followed properly, the petitioner cannot question the same.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To
1. The Director, Social Welfare and Nutrition Department, Office of the Social Welfare and Nutrition Department, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.
2. The District Collector, Collectorate, Nagapattinam 3.The Child Development Scheme Officer, Office of the Child Development Scheme, Nagapattinam.
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.No.8469 +1cc to Mr.M.Senthil Advocate SR.No.8185 W.P.No.2256 of 2018 KP 26.02.2018