Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

C Rajamanickam vs The District Collector Villupuram District Villupuram And Others

Madras High Court|31 January, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to direct the 3rd respondent to sponsor his name to the second respondent, to be appointed as Village Assistant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is 10th failed and registered with the 3rd respondent on 19.03.1991. In the year 2012, his name was sponsored by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent, for the post of Village Assistant. But he was not appointed to the said post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his name was not sponsored for the interview conducted by the 2nd respondent on 16.09.2013. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents stating that he is 38 years old and that he is at the fag end to get a government job and that persons who are junior to him in seniority has been sponsored and selected by the 2nd respondent. Since no action was taken by the respondents, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the aforesaid prayer.
3. The third respondent has filed his counter affidavit.
Learned Additional Government Pleader, drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the last candidate's seniority in Scheduled Caste General Non-priority category is 10.01.1991. Since the petitioner's seniority date is 19.03.1991, he does not come within the purview of the cut off date and so his name was not sponsored to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
5. It has been made clear in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, the priority status of the petitioner, the norms followed by him and had also stated the reasons for not sponsoring the petitioner. Hence, this Court finds no reason to consider the case of the petitioner.
6. In the light of the submission made by the 3rd respondent, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
31.01.2017 Index: Yes/ No D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.
avr To
1. The District Collector Villupuram District Villupuram.
2. The Tahsildar Sanakarapuram Taluk Villupuram District Villupuram.
3. The District Employment Officer Villupuram District Villupuram.
W.P. No. 26137 of 2013
31.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

C Rajamanickam vs The District Collector Villupuram District Villupuram And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
31 January, 2017
Judges
  • D Krishnakumar