← Library
Madras High CourtWP/35613/2016disposed of

P.Pugazhendhi, v. The District Employment

2016-10-06Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.10.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition No.35613 of 2016 P.Pugazhendhi ... Petitioner vs.

The District Employment Officer, O/o. The District Employment Office, Nandanam, Chennai.

... Respondent Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.09.2016 and thereby direct the respondent to sent interview calling letter to the petitioner for any of the vacant post in the government department based upon his educational qualification within a stipulated period.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajesh Kanna For Respondent : Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, Gov. Advocate.

ORDER

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.09.2016 and thereby direct the respondent to send interview calling letter to the petitioner for any of the vacant post in the government department based upon his educational qualification.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner failed in 10th standard, he registered educational qualification before the respondent department. The respondent without following the seniority, simply forwarded the name of the candidates according to their own whims and fancies. The junior candidates, who got registered their educational qualification subsequent to the petitioner, have been issued https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

with an interview calling letter by the respondent department. But, no interview calling letter was sent to the petitioner by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner made representation dated 06.09.2016 to the respondent. Even thereafter, no progressive action was taken up by the respondent department. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made on either side, this Court, without going to the merits of the claim of the petitioner, directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.09.2016 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- ASST. REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST. REGISTRAR To The District Employment Officer, O/o. The District Employment Office, Nandanam, Chennai.

+1 cc to M/S.A.Rajesh Kanna, Advocate SR.NO. 57582 +1 cc to Govt. Pleader, SR.NO. 57827 W.P.No.35613 of 2016 RK(CO) MMP 15.11.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/