Madras High CourtWP/17225/2017dismissed

P.Prabhu v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2017-07-07Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 07.07.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM WRIT PETITION.No.17225 of 2017 P.Prabhu ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort, Saint George, Chennai.

2.The Chairman/The Additional Director General of Police, Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioners Office Building, Egmore, Chennai-8.

3.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4 ... Respondents 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 17.04.2017 addressed to 1st respondent and to pass order according to law within time frame.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Malath Devapriyam For Respondents : Mr.K.Dhananjeyan, Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The relief sought for in this Writ petition is to consider the representation dated 17th April 2017 filed by the writ petitioner.

2. The contentions set out in this writ petition are that the writ petitioner has completed B.A. degree in 2008 and obtained "C" Certificate from NCC. He applied for recruitment to the post of Police Constable Grade-II through the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board on 23rd November 2009. The contention of the writ petitioner is that he attended the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

interview and was waiting for appointment. Having not received any communication from the respondents, he made a representation dated 14th April 2017.

3. The recruitment as stated in this writ petition, relates to the year 2009 and the writ petitioner has waited for about eight years and is now approaching this Court through this writ of mandamus for a direction to consider the representation.

4. No doubt, the writ petitioner would have performed well in the interview. Be that as it may, this Court cannot consider such a contention now raised after a lapse of eight years from the year of recruitment and consequently, the representation submitted by the writ petitioner deserves no further consideration.

5. The cause stated in this writ petition is not only belated but also baseless. Such being the factum of this case, this court is not inclined to consider the claim made either in the representation or in the affidavit filed along with this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS VI) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

1. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort, Saint George, Chennai.

2. The Chairman/The Additional Director General of Police, Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioners Office Building, Egmore, Chennai-8.

3. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4 SR. cc to M/s. Advocate,SR. + 1 cc to M/s.A.Malath Devapriyam Advocate,SR.47920 + 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.47658 W.P. No.17225 of 2017 SKS(CO) NR 25/07/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/