T.Manimegalai v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.03.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Writ Appeal (MD).No.182 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 T.Manimegalai ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.

... Respondent/Respondent Prayer : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 14.09.2010 passed in W.P.(MD). Nos.3017 of 2006 batch of cases by this Court in so for dismissing the W.P.(MD)No.3523 of 2007.

Prayer in WP(MD). 3523/ 2007 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Nutritious Meal Organiser at Government Kallar primary school, ammapatty, aundipatty panchayat union, Theni district. For Appellant : Mr.D.Malaichamy For Respondent : Mr.V.Muruganandam, Additional Government Pleader

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.09.2010 in W.P.(MD).No.3523 of 2007 filed by the appellant. The said writ petition was disposed of by common order, dated 14.09.2010. The prayer sought for by the petitioner is for issuance of writ of Mandamus to appoint her as a Noon Meal Organiser. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that

in paragraph - 15 of the common order, the case of the petitioner has not been specifically considered.

4. Though it will be true that the petitioner's case has not been specifically dealt with, the Court has considered the matter elaborately and has given adequate reasons as to why the writ petitions are not maintainable. Further more, the writ petition was dismissed in the year 2010 by order dated 14.09.2010. Under such circumstances, at this distance of time, the question of issuing any direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner would not arise because the Rules for the selection to the said post have been completely revised. Therefore, the impugned order calls for no interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. However, if any notification is issued by the respondents and if the petitioner is eligible to upheld, it is open to the appellant to apply for the said post. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.

+1cc to M/s.D.MALAICHAMY Advocate in SR. No.16590 AKV JS/KP/SAR.4/2P-3C/06/04/2017 Writ Appeal (MD).No.182 of 2013 21.03.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/