Poopathi, D/O.Vaithi v. The District Project Officer,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 02.02.2015
CORAM:
The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.No.28384 of 2012 Poopathi
...Petitioner
- Vs.- 1.
The District Project Officer District Project Office Combined Children Welfare Duty Additional Building District Collector Office Dharmapuri.
2.
Children Welfare Project Officer 3.
Block Development Officer
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15 August 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Udayakumar for Mr. Karan and Uday For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Ramesh AGP
ORDER
The petitioner submitted a representation for appointment to the post of Noon Meal worker in Kammampatti Village and Papampatti Village. The application was submitted on 4 June 2012. It is the case of the petitioner that interview letter was not sent in advance and it was delivered to her only on 11 August, 2012, which happened to be the date of interview. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15 August 2012 requesting the respondents to appoint her to the post of Noon Meal Worker. Since there was no follow up action taken by the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it was indicated that interview letter was sent on 6 August 2012. The petitioner received the same on 11 August, 2012. According to the respondents, the delay has happened only on account of the time spent for sending from Dhamapuri to Thoppur Post Office.
3. The matter relates to appointment for the post of Noon Meal Worker for the year 2012. The interview was on 11 August 2012. The petitioner appears to have received the interview letter only on 11 August, 2012. The respondents have completed the selection process and made appointments. The appointees are not parties to the writ petition. The petitioner seeks only a Mandamus. There is no question of issuing a mandamus at this point of time without challenging the appointments made by the first respondent. Therefore I am of the view that no relief could be granted to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the appointments made by the first respondent if she is still aggrieved.
4. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs.
Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS II ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar Tr/ To 1.
The District Project Officer District Project Office Combined Children Welfare Duty Additional Building District Collector Office Dharmapuri.
2.
The Children Welfare Project Officer
3.
The Block Development Officer 1 cc to Government Pleader, sr. 5404 1 cc to M/s. Karan and uday, Advocate, sr. 5265 W.P.No.28384 of 2012 PA (CO) kk 17/2