Skip to content


T. Devasundar Moses Vs. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition(MD)Nos. 16607, 16608, 16609, 16610, 16611 of 2016
Judge
AppellantT. Devasundar Moses
RespondentThe Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore
Excerpt:
.....issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner for the post of bugler constable as requested in the petitioner's representation, dated 15.4.2016 within the time frame fixed by this court.) 1. s.bharathi, learned government advocate takes notice for the respondent and by consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. mr.t.deva sundar moses, the petitioner herein has come to this court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the the respondent to consider the petitioner for the post of bugler constable as requested in his representation, dated 15.04.2016 within the time frame fixed by this court. 3. the said prayer is totally mis-conceived. the reason is that the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, sent a.....
Judgment:

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the Petitioner for the post of Bugler Constable as requested in the Petitioner's representation, dated 15.4.2016 within the time frame fixed by this Court.)

1. S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent and by consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. Mr.T.Deva Sundar Moses, the Petitioner herein has come to this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the the respondent to consider the Petitioner for the post of Bugler Constable as requested in his representation, dated 15.04.2016 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

3. The said prayer is totally mis-conceived. The reason is that the Petitioner, on an earlier occasion, sent a representation for the same prayer and it was rejected by the respondent, by order, dated 15.04.2014, in Na.Ka.No.A1/1325/2014, citing the reason that he was over-aged. Further, the Petitioner along with others has also filed W.P(MD)No.16210 to 16213 of 2014, challenging the above order and this Court has dismissed the same, finding no merits in the Writ Petitions. Therefore, when Petitioner's Writ Petition challenging the order, dated 15.04.2014 rejecting his candidature for the post of Bugler Constable, has been dismissed on the ground of over-age, the Petitioner cannot once-again come to this Court with the very same prayer and hence the Writ Petition fails.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.


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