BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06/11/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.9729 of 2008 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2008 Ramachandran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Thanthondrimalai, Karur. 2.The District Educational Officer, District Educational Office, karur. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent herein to conduct the re-enquiry with regard to residential proof of the petitioner and direct the second respondent to appointment to the petitioner as per Notification in Na.Ka.No.5070/A2/2007 dated 19.02.2008. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.Karnan ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.D.Sasikumar, the
learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the
petitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying the
writ petition is to the effect the petitioner, in response to the proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.5070/A2/2007 dated 19.02.2008, appeared before the second respondent
and produced all his testimonials as found set out in the said communication;
thereafter, others, who appeared along with him, were given appointments as
Secondary Grade Teacher; but the petitioner is not in receipt of any such
appointment order; on oral enquiry, he got ascertained from the office of the
second respondent that the place of residence of the petitioner, according to
them differs from the one furnished by him.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, actually the
address furnished to the second respondent was the old address of the petitioner
and subsequently he changed his residence from that house to another house in
the same street and apparently there was no misinformation or false information
furnished to the authorities. In such a case, the petitioner sent a Lawyer’s
notice also to the respondents, but there is no response. Hence, this writ
petition.
4. Despite time having been granted, there is no response from the
respondents.
5. Heard the learned Government Advocate also.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would make a guileless and
innocuous representation that direction may be given to the authorities
concerned to consider his representation, after giving due opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner.
7. Hence, in such a case, the following direction is issued:
The second respondent shall do well to see that he is considering the
representation of the petitioner dated 23.09.2008 purely on merits, after giving
due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of fifteen days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and do the needful.
8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
smn/dp
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thanthondrimalai,
Karur.
2.The District Educational Officer,
District Educational Office,
karur.