Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4279 (MAD)

N. Mari v. Union of India

2010-09-23

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners in the post of Preraks, Nodal Preraks, Block Project Co-ordinator etc., in the Scheme called "Saakshar Bharat Scheme". 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners worked in different capacities under the old Scheme viz., Continuing Education Scheme from 2003 to 2008. Therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court seeking for the above said relief. It is contended that the respondents are going to establish a new scheme called "Saakshar Bharat Scheme." and in the said scheme, the petitioners may be absorbed. 3. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the old Scheme was already closed. It is contended that the petitioners are not working under the old Scheme as on date. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioners would be given preference in absorbing in the existing new Scheme "Saakshar Bharat Scheme." 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the entire materials available on record. 5. It is seen that the petitioners worked under the old Scheme "Continuing Education Scheme" in different capacities. It is pertinent to note that the said old Scheme was closed and it is claimed that the petitioners who were working in Salem District, were paid poor salary. However, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents categorically stated before this Court that the petitioners are not working under the old Scheme, which was closed. It is also categorically stated before this Court by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioners would be given preference in respect of employment under the new and existing Scheme viz., "Saakshar Bharat Scheme." 6. Considering the said submissions of the learned Government Advocate, it is suffice for this Court to dispose of the petition, by recording the above said statement of the learned Government Advocate to the effect that the petitioners would be given preferential right in absorbing under the present existing Scheme namely "Saakshar Bharat Scheme". Considering the said submissions of the learned Government Advocate, it is suffice for this Court to dispose of the petition, by recording the above said statement of the learned Government Advocate to the effect that the petitioners would be given preferential right in absorbing under the present existing Scheme namely "Saakshar Bharat Scheme". It is made clear that it is open to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondents seeking for the relief of payment of arrears of salary, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the respondents shall consider such representation on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2010 is closed.