SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 86636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hon`ble Ms Justice R.N. MANJULA
E.Suresh – Appellant
Versus
The Director - Cum- Appointi – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W .P. No.14398 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.17881 to 17883 of 2020 E.Suresh ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director-cum-Appointing Authority, National Institute of Empowerment of Persons, (NIEPMD), E.C.R., Muttuakadu, Kovalam Post, Chennai 600 112.

2.The Joint Secretary to Government of India, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Paryavaram Bhawan, 5th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.

3. The Under Secretary to Government of India, Department of Empowement of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, 5th Floor, B-Wing, Pt.Deendayal Antyodaya Bhavan, CGO Complex, New Delhi - 110 003. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings F.No.8-2/2017-N1 dated 26.07.2017 and quash the same in consequence to that direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in its services with all benefits attached thereto with continuity of service.

For Petitioner : Ms.P.V.Rajeswari For Respondents : Ms.R.Durgarani for R1 to R3

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings F.No.8-2/2017-N1 dated 26.07.2017 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits attached thereto with continuity of service.

2. Heard Ms.P.V.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.R.Durgarani, learned counsel for R1 to R3.

3. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the termination order on the ground that he was terminated from service without giving any notice. The petitioner got appointed as Rehabilitation Officer (Social Work) on 03.02.2015 and he has to undergo probation for a period of two years.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the verge of completion of two years of service, before declaring the probation of the petitioner, the first respondent has terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment is irregular, without giving any notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved over that, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

5. The petitioner had applied for the said post consequent to the notification issued by the National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Multiple Disabilities vide Employment Notice No.2/2014. The notification prescribed the essential qualification for the above post is 1.) Bachelor's Degree in Social Work from a recognised University 2.) Five years' experience of working in a reputed organisation working in the field of disability 3.) Previous experience in Computer Application in day to day work.

6. The Master's Degree in Social Work, published book in the field of peer reviewed format and any diploma / certificate course in disability related area are also the desirable qualification for the said post. Having found that the petitioner qualified to the above post, he has been selected through the selection committee and he was given with an appointment order on 03.02.2015. The first respondent appointing authority has passed the termination order by citing the following reasons:

"7. Whereas, in view of complaints and representations, the JS, DEPwD & the Chairperson, EC, had ordered to submit the details recruitment procedures followed on the appointment of Shri E.Suresh to the post of Rehabilitation Officer (Social Work). A statement was submitted after a detailed study of the case and was reported that the appointment is irregular."

7. The petitioner gave a representation to the third respondent and the third respondent has also re-asserted the orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top