Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mrs.J.Nisha Banu, Mrs.S.Srimathy, JJ
Hajee K.E. Mudhammad Ismayil – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department – Respondent
ORDER :
J. NISHA BANU, J.
This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondent No.5 to complete the enquiry and take action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 01.06.2022 forwarded by the respondent No.3 through communication letter No.10814/2022 MCA-1 dated 25.07.2022 within a time frame.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that originally, the 6th respondent/Tmt.Sivapackiam was appointed as a Female Nursing Orderly in the Public Health Department of the Madurai Corporation in 1993. Later, she resigned the said post in 1994 and joined as Typist in the General Service Department of the Madurai Corporation. Thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant and then Superintendent. Pursuant to creation of the post of Law Officer vide G.O.No.76, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.05.1998, she was appointed as Law Officer on 12.01.2015. He would further state that the 6th respondent has completed LLB three years degree course from Al Ameen Law College at Bangalore, Karnataka State from 1997 to 2000, without attending the college regularly and without even obtaining permission from his employer namely, M
Eligibility for appointment as Law Officer does not require a law degree obtained through regular attendance; previous court decisions on the matter are binding.
Promotion decisions must consider overall service record and misconduct penalties; seniority alone does not guarantee promotion.
Point of Law : ‘Writ of Mandamus’ is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself.
Candidates must possess eligibility qualifications by the application deadline, and false statements in applications lead to disqualification.
Inordinate delay and suppression of facts in seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution bar the petitioner from obtaining the desired remedy.
An employee must possess the requisite qualifications at the time of publication of a promotion panel, and subsequent disqualification is grounds for exclusion.
The court established that withholding appointment orders without adequate justification violates principles of fairness and transparency in public employment.
The court ruled that the appointment of Additional Advocate Generals is a professional engagement, not subject to employment laws, and the petitioner's claims lacked merit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
