Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1914 (MAD)

P. Dhandapani v. The Special Officer

2006-07-31

P.K.MISRA

body2006
Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent dated 01.04.2006, quash the same and direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue his service.) Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner was serving as a Fertilizer Salesman under the respondent Society on consolidated pay of Rs.1,200/- per month and subsequently, his appointment was regularised in April, 2000. On 01.04.2006, the petitioner submitted his resignation from the post as he intended to contest the election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, which was scheduled to be held during the month of May, 2006. Such resignation was accepted on the very same day and thereafter, admittedly, the petitioner contested the election but unfortunately, he was not elected. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition stating that as per the regulation, for tendering resignation, minimum one month notice was required and therefore, resignation could not have been accepted on the same day. 4. I do not think such contention is open to be advanced by the petitioner as the petitioner is obviously bound by the principles of estoppel. From the facts narrated by the petitioner himself, it is apparent that the petitioner intended to contest the election and therefore, it is obvious that he has persuaded the competent authority to accept the resignation on the very same day so that he could file the nomination for contesting the election. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a young man, aged about 31 years and he may be permitted to file a fresh application for employment under the very same Society and such application may be sympathetically considered and if there is any vacancy available, the petitioner can be engaged as a fresh candidate. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application to the respondent and if any such application is filed, the same may be sympathetically considered by the respondent. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is dismissed.