BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/03/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.2369 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.2601 of 2006 M.Ramesh Rajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Bye Pass road, Madurai, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2.Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Tirunelveli, Rep. by its Managing Director. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, dircting the respondents to employ the petitioner as per the appointment order issued by the first respondent in No.7484/APP-1/TNGSTC/-TNLY-2005 dated 27.02.2006. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.S.R.Venkat Ramana ^For Respondents ... Mr.K.V. Vijayakumar, Special Government Pleader :ORDER
Mr.K.V. Vijayakumar, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. By consent of both
the counsel, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.
3. This writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents to
employ the petitioner as per the appointment order issued by the first
respondent. The order of appointment dated 27-02-2006 issued by the first
respondent shows that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary driver on
daily wages basis. However, the appointment order dated 27-02-2006 directs that
the petitioner should join duty in the Government Transport Department office,
Tirunelveli on or before 10-03-2006. The case of the petitioner is that even
though the petitioner was directed to join duty on or before 10-03-2006 based on
said appointment order for the past three days he went to the office at
Tirunelveli but he was not allowed to join duty on the basis that the model code
of conduct issued by the Election Commission prevents such order. In these
circumstances, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.
4.When the matter came up for hearing on 09-03-2006, this Court directed
the Special Govoernment Pleader to take notice and find out the reason for not
allowing of the petitioner to join duty.
5.The learned Special Government pleader presents the letter of the Chief
Electoral Officer dated 03-03-2006 addressed to the Secretary, Government
Transport Department in which the Chief Electroal Officer has stated that as per
the Model Code of Conduct the Election Commission has directed that even in
cases where appointment orders have been issued, the State Transport
Undertakings may be instructed that the candidates should not be allowed to
join duty before the completion of the process of elections.
Therefore,according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the only reason
for preventing the petitioner from joining duty is the direction given by the
Election Commission.
6. In view of the same, recording the satement it is made clear that
the petitioner should be allowed to take up the appointment after the election
is over.
7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There
is no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
sml
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Ltd.,
Bye Pass road,
Madurai.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Ltd.,
Tirunelveli.