M.Jeevilin Silvi Moses v. The Greater Chennai Corporation
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.No. 35362 of 2024 And W.M.P.No. 38242 of 2024 M.Jeevilin Silvi Moses ... Petitioner ..Vs..
1.
The Greater Chennai Corporation Represented by its Commissioner Ripon Building, Chennai - 600 003.
2.
S.Singaravelu 3.
N.Sivapathy ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2019, 15.07.2024 and 25.07.2024 pending on the file of the first respondents within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court and to further direct the first respondent not to
vary the seniority list dated 07.09.2016 approved by Council's Resolution No.530 of 2016 either pursuant to the Circular dated 14.11.2019 or otherwise and further restrain the first respondent from promoting the second and third respondents to the post of Divisional Electrical Engineer till the representations of the petitioner are considered. *** For Petitioner :: Mr. Richardson Wilson For 1st Respondent :: Mrs. P.T.Ramadevi Standing Counsel For 2nd Respondent :: Mr.R.Karthikeyan For 3rd Respondent :: M/s. Kavitha Rameshwar
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking examination of representations given by the petitioner on 18.11.2019, 15.07.2024 and 25.07.2024 before the first respondent, the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the writ petitioner
had been promoted as Junior Engineer under the first respondent on 21.06.1995. It had been stated that subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer (Electrical) on 30.04.2016. The petitioner has impleaded as respondents in the Writ Petition as second and third respondents other Assistant Executive Engineers, who according to the petitioner had been promoted to that particular post on 24.08.2016 and 01.09.2016 respectively. The learned counsel stated that therefore, logically, the petitioner should have been placed in the Seniority List above the second and third respondents, it was done so when the initial list was published. But subsequently, another list had been published on 14.11.2019 and the petitioner found that the second and third respondents were placed above her. There is an obligation placed on the first respondent to explain that particular fact and explain how that particular seniority was determined to the disadvantage of the petitioner. That can be done by examination of the representations given by the petitioner herein.
3. The first respondent is therefore directed to examine the representations given with respect to the placement of seniority in the post of Assistant Executive Engineers and pass a considered order. Incidentally,
if required, they may also hear the second and third respondents or any other Assistant Executive Engineers, whose names are found in the particular seniority list dated 14.11.2019. The entire exercise must be completed by the first respondent within a period of three months from the date of copy of this order. Any party aggrieved by such a list prepared always has an option to take it up in manner known to law.
4. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. No order as to costs. 28.03.2025 vsg Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To The Commissioner The Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building, Chennai - 600 003.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J., vsg W.P.No. 35362 of 2024 And W.M.P.No. 38242 of 2024 28.03.2025