Madras High CourtWP(MD)/1540/2014disposed of

P.Indira, W/O Pon Pachaimal, v. Manonmaniam Sundaranar

2019-08-08Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.08.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.1540 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 P.Indira ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Rep. by its Registrar, Palkalai Nagar, Tirunelveli.

2.Sri Devi Kumari Women's College, Rep. by its Secretary, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.

3.Ms.Suju ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order vide R.C.No.1044/2008/C1, dated 07.01.2009 issued by the second respondent and quash the same consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in English in the second respondent college. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem For R1 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R2 : No appearance For R3 : M.Saravanakumar

ORDER

The appointment of the third respondent as English Lecturer in the second respondent College is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2.The writ petitioner claims that she participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of English Lecturer. However, the third respondent was appointed based on the improper selection procedure adopted by the second respondent in violation of the statutes and rules. Though, several grounds are raised attacking the validity of the selection conducted by the second respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the efflux of time resulted loss of claim to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner even at the time of filing of the writ petition was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

aged about 51 years and now, she would be around 57 years. Under these circumstances, the relief as such sought for to appoint the writ petitioner cannot be granted.

3. This being the factum, no useful purpose would be served in the event of considering the grounds raised in the present writ petition as the writ petitioner itself is over aged and in the verge of the age of retirement provided under rules.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) +1 CC to Mr.T.ANTONY ARUL RAJ, Advocate ( SR-80837[F] dated 09/08/2019 ) +1 CC to Mr.M.SARAVANAKUMAR, Advocate (SR-81377[F] dated 13/08/2019 ) W.P.(MD)No.1540 of 2014 08.08.2019 am MK (27.08.2019) 2P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/