Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 317 (MAD)

M. Sadayandi v. Collector, Madurai District

2013-01-11

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The prayer in this writ petition is as follows:- “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to direct the 2nd respondent to give the Preference in Employment in consonance with the Employment Preference Certificate issued by the 3rd respondent and also the G.O.Ms.No.188 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per-P), Department, dated 28.12.1976 and pass and such further other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of the case and thus render justice.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to get preferential treatment in employment as per the certificate issued by the third respondent and also in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.P) Department, dated 28.12.1976. 3. From the perusal of the documents filed along with this writ petition, it is seen that the very request made by the petitioner's father seeking for preferential treatment in the employment to the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent through his proceedings, dated 07.07.2000 and the said order has not been challenged so far. While that being the position, I am unable to appreciate the course of action taken by the petitioner to file the present writ petition seeking for a mandamus, directing the second respondent to give preference in the employment. Without challenging the said order, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition. 4. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on an unreported decision of this court made in W.P.(MD)No.5928 of 2009, dated 02.03.2010 in support of his submission. At any event, as there is an order passed against the petitioner as early as on 07.07.2000, without challenging the same, the present writ petition cannot be maintained. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of the second respondent, dated 07.07.2000 in a manner known to law. No costs.