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

In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court|07 February, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. Mr.O. Selvam, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.O.R.Maheswaran, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the 4th respondent.
3. The petitioner would aver that his father was employed as an Organiser in Noon Meal Scheme Cenre at Pathalapalli Panchayat Union Elementary School and he died in harness on 26.05.2002 leaving behind the petitioner, his mother Lakshmiamma and his brother Ganesa, as legal heirs. The petitioner, on getting legal heirship certificate on 11.09.2002, made an attempt to submit an application for compassionate ground appointment and having found that the said post is reserved for female candidates, has waited and thereafter, a positive recommendation was made by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 27688/09/X.1 dated 24.09.2009 to the 2nd respondent and the office of the District Collector has also forwarded necessary documents to the 2nd respondent, vide communication dated 30.06.2009 and once again, a reminder was also sent by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent by Letter in Na.Ka.No. 18496/2008/X1 dated 30.11.2014.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner woud submit that despite a positive recommendation having been made by the 3rd respondent, so far, no orders have been passed conferring the benefit of compassionate ground appointment in favour of the petitioner and therefore, prays for appropriate orders.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that based on the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent will forward a proposal to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent will pass orders on the said proposal, as expeditiously as possible.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the typed set of documents.
7. Though the petitioner prays for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, directs the 2nd respondent to act on M. SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
nv the communication of the 3rd respondent dated 24.09.2009 in Na.Ka.No. 27688/09/X.1 as well as reminder dated 30.11.2014 in Na.Ka. No. 18496/2008/X1 and forward a proposal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 1st respondent, on receipt of the said proposal, is directed to consider the same, on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders, within a further period of eight weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 07.02.2017 nv To
1. The Secretary to Govt., Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai  600 009.
2. The Director of Social Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai  600 005.
3. The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
W.P. No. 2958 of 2017
4. The Commissioner, Sullagiri Panchayat Union, Krishnagiri District.
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

In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
07 February, 2017