Skip to content


U. Sethulakshmi and Others Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P.(MD)Nos. 1801 to 1803 of 2011 & M.P(MD)Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2011
Judge
AppellantU. Sethulakshmi and Others
RespondentThe District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar and Another
Excerpt:
.....within the stipulated period which this court may deem fit and proper.) common order 1. these writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioner for the issuance of a writ of mandamus,directing the first respondent to promote these petitioners to the post of anganwadi worker in any of the anganwadi centres situated in arupukottai, virudhunager district, on the basis of their representation, dated 27.01.2011 respectively. 2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned government advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. after some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it would suffice if the representations of the petitioners are disposed of, by the respondents, on merits and in accordance with law,.....
Judgment:

(Prayer in all petitions: Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Worker in any of the Anganwadi Centres situated in Arupukottai, Virudhunager District, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2011 respectively within the stipulated period which this Court may deem fit and proper.)

Common Order

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioner for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,directing the first respondent to promote these petitioners to the post of Anganwadi Worker in any of the Anganwadi Centres situated in Arupukottai, Virudhunager District, on the basis of their representation, dated 27.01.2011 respectively.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. After some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it would suffice if the representations of the petitioners are disposed of, by the respondents, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the representations of the petitioners will be considered in accordance with law.

5. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioners in these Writ Petitions, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation sent by the petitioners, dated 27.01.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners as well as interested parties, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //