Madras High CourtWP/30880/2016disposed of

A.Tamilselvi v. The Director General Of

2016-09-02Honourable Mr Justice B. Rajendran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 02.09.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P. No.30880 of 2016 A.Tamilselvi .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Chennai

2. The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam O/o of Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District of Police, Nagapattinam.

.. Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.02.2016 given by her to the respondent seeking for promotion within a time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : Mr.O.Djearany For Respondents: Mr.A.Kumar, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2.This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.02.2016 seeking for promotion.

3. The petitioner has joined in the service of the police department as Constable on 01.04.1981 as a direct recruit and subsequently got promoted as Head Constable on 31.12.1996, vide proceedings dated 07.04.2010 and promoted as Sub Inspector on 18.07.2005. Admittedly, the petitioner has been performing his duties without any adversity. Further, the Women Inspectors of police who were similarly placed as that of the petitioner, were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

all given promotion as Inspector of Police and no promotion was given to the petitioner. Earlier, also the promotion of the petitioner was belatedly given without any reasons. Though several representations were given to the respondents seeking promotion, till date no orders have been passed and hence, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied, if her representation is directed to be considered and appropriate orders are passed as expeditiously as possible.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has got no serious objection for directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law.

6.Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the 2nd respondent, to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 28.02.2016, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.

7.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssd To 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai

2. The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam O/o of Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District of Police, Nagapattinam.

+1cc to M/s. A. Tamilvanan, Advocate, S.R.No.49933 SAI(CO) EU(28/09/2016) W.P. No.30880 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/