Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
R.Raju – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. admission stage disposal with consent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's service and promotion claim. (Para 5) |
| 3. direct consideration of representations timely. (Para 6 , 7) |
O R D E R
Mr.B.Ramanathan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2.
2. In view of the relief sought in this writ petition, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.
3. With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2.
5. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed as Watchman on 01.11.1997 in the second respondent's office and he has been continuing in the said post for the past about 28 years with unblemished service. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is fully qualified and eligible for promotion to various posts, such as, Thirukovil Niruvaga Ilanilai Udhaviyalar, Junior Assistant, Suit Writer, Record Clerk. However, the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents for promotion. Under those circumstances, the petitioner claims to have submit
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
