N. Mathivanan v. The Director of Municipal Administration Chepauk
2012-02-06
VINOD K.SHARMA
body2012
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Town Planning Inspector on a regular basis in the existing vacancy in the Vellore Municipality, Vellore as recommended by The Commissioner, Vellore Municipality vide letter dated 17.05.1999. 2. The petitioner had also prayed for interim directions, directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Town Planning Inspector in the Vellore Municipality. 3. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, while admitting this petition, ordered by way of interim direction to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Town Planning Inspector. 4. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the direction issued by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, the case of the petitioner was considered and he was ordered to be promoted on 06.08.2001 and he is working on promoted post since then. 5. In view of the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Town Planning Inspector, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 6. The apprehension of the petitioner is that now Vellore Municipality has been converted into Municipality Corporation, and the post of Town Planning Inspector comes under the Engineering Service, therefore, he is to be adjusted against the post in the Engineering Section. If this writ petition is disposed of, the petitioner may not be absorbed. 7. This apprehension is totally misconceived. The order of promotion of the petitioner has been passed by the Municipality, after considering his claim in accordance with law, therefore, the Corporation will be bound to consider the petitioner as Town Planning Inspector for his absorption in the Corporation in accordance with law, as the petitioner was promoted by the Municipality and not under the interim direction of the Court, which had only recommended the case for consideration on merits in accordance with law. 8. Dismissed as infructuous. No costs.