Skip to content


A. Sivaram Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Transport, Fort St. George,Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P.(MD)No. 10879 of 2011
Judge
AppellantA. Sivaram
RespondentThe State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Transport, Fort St. George,Chennai and Others
Excerpt:
.....dated 27.11.2006 on the file of the respondent no.3 with all consequential benefits within the time stipulated by this court.) 1. the petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to re-fix his seniority above the 4th respondent in the seniority list of degree holders, dated 27.11.2006, on the file of the 3rd respondent with all consequential benefits within the time stipulated by this court. 2. heard mr.t.lajapathy roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as mr.aairam k.selvakumar learned government advocate appearing for first respondent and mr.s.baskaran, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if the representation of the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to re-fix the petitioner's seniority above the respondent No.4 in the Seniority list of Degree Holders dated 27.11.2006 on the file of the respondent No.3 with all consequential benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.)

1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to re-fix his seniority above the 4th respondent in the Seniority list of Degree Holders, dated 27.11.2006, on the file of the 3rd respondent with all consequential benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.Aairam K.Selvakumar learned Government Advocate appearing for first respondent and Mr.S.Baskaran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.06.2011, is disposed of, by the second respondent, in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.8674 of 1998 dated 26.06.1998, within the time stipulated by this Court.

4. In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the second respondent/Managing Director is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.06.2011, in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.8674 of 1998, dated 26.06.1998, after giving notice to the interested parties, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.


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