Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2696 (MAD)

S. Meenakshi v. District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai

2016-08-03

T.RAJA

body2016
ORDER : The petitioner is a Typist, working under the respondents from 11.09.2009 onwards. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though she is eligible to be included in the approved lists Assistant of the year 2012, the respondents did not do so, citing the reason that the petitioner has not completed the training in regard to the Survey and Land Records, before the crucial date of drawal of Assistants. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the duty of the respondents to send the petitioner for training in time. However, the respondents have belatedly sent the petitioner for training. Therefore, the fault made by the respondents cannot be put against the petitioner. Stating all these facts, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents, but, till date, they have not passed any order. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court. 4. Mr. M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate was put on notice for the respondents. 5. In view of the limited prayer sought for in this Writ Petition, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 11.06.2016, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.