Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
A.Anand – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary/ Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's service history and promotion claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. respondent's defense on eligibility and procedures. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. no automatic time-bound promotion to junior assistant. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. regulations require junior assistant experience for assistant. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed, no merits. (Para 35) |
ORDER
Heard, Ms.C.Madhuri, learned counsel for Mr.R.Udhayakumar, the counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Isha, learned counsel for Ms.P.Veena Suresh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the materials on record.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was temporarily appointed as Typist in the office of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority vide appointment order dated 19.05.2010; that he was placed on probation for a period of two years in a continuous period of three years; that his probation was declared and his services were regularized from the date of joining of his service i.e., on 24.05.2010 vide proceedings dated 29.05.2012 and that while working as Typist in Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, he was
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
