Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
M. RAJAMANICKAM & ANOTHER V/S THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DHARMAPURI & OTHERS, decided on Friday, September 8, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Madras, Writ Appeal Nos. 1036 & 1037 of 2017. ] 08/09/2017
Judge(s) : S. MANIKUMAR & V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Advocate(s) : D. Ashok Kumar.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  S. Upakaram Versus The District Collector, Tiruchirappallil District, Tiruchirappalli,   01/11/2010.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    (Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders passed in W.P.Nos.13904 and 13903 of 2017 dated 6/6/2017.)Common JudgmentS. Manikumar J.1. M.Rajamanickam and K.M.Radha have filed W.P.Nos.13903 and 13904 of 2017 respectively for a mandamus directing the District Employment Officer Dharmapuri District to consider their representations dated 24/4/2017 and send interview letters to them as and when vacancy arises for any post suitable to their qualification.2. Considering the similarity in the prayers both the writ petitions have been heard together and vide common order dated 6/6/2017 in W.P.Nos.13903 and 13904 of 2017 writ Court at para No.2 ordered as hereunder:-“But this Court may not be in a position to give any such direction. The reason is that when the petitioner in W.P.No.13903 of 2017 has admitted that he was issued twice the interview card by the third respondent the third respondent as per the seniority and qualification will consider the case of the petitioners for sponsorship as and when any vacancy arises or as and when any request/representation is made to the third respondent by any office in this regard. Therefore this Court is not able to find any merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs.”3. Assailing the correctness of the common order dated 6/6/2017 instant Writ Appeal Nos.1036 and 1037 of 2017 have been filed.4. Though Mr.D.Ashok Kumar learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the same submissions made before the writ Court that after bifurcation of Dharmapuri District into two Districts namely Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri call letters were not sent immediately and in as much as the appellants belong to the weaker section of the society and therefore their case requires to be considered this Court is not inclined to accept the said contentions for the reason that the writ Court after adverting to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly held that as per seniority and qualification case of the petitioners would be considered by the third respondent for sponsorship and as and when vacancy arises or as and when any request/representation is made to the third respondent by any office in this regard.5. Though writ Court has observed that the case of the appellants would be considered as above inviting the attention of this Court to the last sentence of the common order that the writ Court as dismissed it is the apprehension of Mr.D.Ashok Kumar learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents herein may not consider the case of the appellants which in our opinion may not be correct but nevertheless by deleting the last sentence if the appellants stand to gain we are not inclined to do so.6. In the result last sentence of the order dated 6/6/2017 i.e. writ petitions dismissed is deleted.7. With the above modification the Writ Appeals are disposed of. Rest of the portion of the common order is retained. No costs. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.