S.Latha, v. The Director-Cum- Group

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.11.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P. No.28716 of 2017 S.Latha Petitioner Vs.

1. The Director - cum - Group Director, Integrated Child Development System, Taramani, Chennai

2. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Vellore District

3. The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development System, Arakonam Circle, Vellore District

4. S.Divya Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.09.2017 and thereby direct the 3rd respondent to cancel the appointment of 4th respondent and appoint the petitioner in the post of Anganwadi Worker in Thanigai Polur Anganvadi Centre.

For Petitioner:

Mr.A.Suresh For Respondents:

Mr. V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.09.2017 and to direct the 3rd respondent to cancel the appointment of 4th respondent and appoint the petitioner in the post of Anganwadi Worker in Thanigai Polur Anganvadi Centre.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Admittedly, when the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that the 3rd respondent, namely, the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development System, Vellore District has appointed S.Divya, who is the 4th respondent herein in the post of Anganvadi Worker in Thanigai Polur Anganvadi centre, she cannot come to this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to consider her representation without challenging the order of appointment issued in favour of the 4th respondent. Therefore, being aware of the appointment order made in favour of the 4th respondent, the petitioner cannot seek a wrong remedy, which is unsustainable, namely, issuance of direction to consider her representation. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, seeking a writ of mandamus to consider her representation is liable to be dismissed, since she has not questioned the correctness of the appointment order issued in favour of the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS V ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ssd To

1. The Director - cum - Group Director, Integrated Child Development System, Taramani, Chennai

2. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Vellore District

3. The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development System, Arakonam Circle, Vellore District +1cc to Mr.A.Suresh, Advocate in sr.no.80348 W.P. No.28716 of 2017 NR 11/12/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/