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

K.Amutha Valarmathi vs The Assistant Director

Madras High Court|04 April, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the impugned order dated 13.04.2007 passed by the second respondent and quash the same, by way of issuing a writ of certiorari.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that the father of the petitioner has donated a piece of land for the purpose of constructing a school building and under the said circumstances the petitioner is having preference in getting employment and on that basis the petitioner has given a representation, but the same has been erroneously rejected by the second respondent by way of passing the impugned order and under the said circumstances the present writ petition has been filed.
3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended that since the father of the petitioner has donated a piece of land for the purpose of constructing a school building, question of giving preference in employment to the petitioner does not arise and the second respondent has rightly passed the impugned order and therefore the order passed by the second respondent does not require any interference.
4.It is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioner has donated a piece of land for putting up construction of a school building.
5.The main contention putforth on the side of the petitioner is that since the father of the petitioner has donated a piece of land for the purpose mentioned supra, the petitioner is entitled to get preference in the matter of employment. Even though such contention has been taken on the side of the petitioner, no specific provision is available. Under the said circumstances, the second respondent has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and in view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error nor illegality in the order passed by the second respondent and altogether the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6.In fine, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The Assistant Director, Labour and Employment Office, Chennai.
2.The District Employment Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District..
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

K.Amutha Valarmathi vs The Assistant Director

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
04 April, 2017