Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3953 (MAD)

C. Murugan v. Director of Animal Husbandry

2014-10-20

M.M.SUNDRESH

body2014
Judgment 1. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent to consider the name of the petitioner for attending training course for Livestock Inspector commencing from 17.10.2013. 2. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, both the counsel appearing for the parties submitted that the period for which the petitioner has sought for training has expired. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader, based on the averments in the counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioner was not qualified for the training course at that relevant point of time. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently the petitioner is qualified for undergoing training course and hence, the respondent may be directed to consider the name of the petitioner for the future training course. 5. Considering the submissions, this Court directs the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for training course for Livestock Inspector in future, if he is otherwise qualified. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.