Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

S. Vanitha Vs. The State rep. by its Principal Home Secretary, Chennai and Others

S. Vanitha vs The State rep. by its Principal Home Secretary, Chennai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Nov 26, 2015
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1179377

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P(MD)No. 16988 of 2015
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Vanitha

Respondent

The State rep. by its Principal Home Secretary, Chennai and Others

Excerpt

.....appointment. the same is the proposal for providing compassionate appointment. thereafter, the third respondent sent a proceedings in na.ka.no.a8/1006/01 dated 05.03.2004, directing the petitioner to produce certain documents. accordingly, the writ petitioner appeared and produced all the document. in the meantime, the petitioner got married 04.03.2004. 2. again, the third respondent sent another proceedings dated 24.09.2014 in b3/1006/2001, directing the petitioner to produce an application, which was submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. accordingly, the petitioner produced the application. but, so far, no order is passed by the respondents for compassionate appointment. hence, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to consider the application dated 05.10.2000 of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of g.o.ms.no.165, dated 30.08.2010. 3. in view of the narrow prayer made, a direction is issued to the second respondent to pass orders on the application of the petitioner dated 05.10.2000 in the light of g.o.ms.no.165, dated 30.08.2010, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. this writ petition is disposed of with above direction. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider petitioner's application dated 05.10.2000 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 30.08.2010 and provide employment on compassionate ground, within stipulated period.)

1. The father of the petitioner was employed as Police Constable. While he was in service, he died on 07.01.1998. He left behind him the petitioner, her mother and three sisters. The petitioner claims compassionate appointment. An application was made on 05.10.2000 for compassionate appointment. The third respondent sent a proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A8/1006/2000 dated 17.01.2001 to the second respondent enclosing the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The same is the proposal for providing compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the third respondent sent a proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A8/1006/01 dated 05.03.2004, directing the petitioner to produce certain documents. Accordingly, the writ petitioner appeared and produced all the document. In the meantime, the petitioner got married 04.03.2004.

2. Again, the third respondent sent another proceedings dated 24.09.2014 in B3/1006/2001, directing the petitioner to produce an application, which was submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner produced the application. But, so far, no order is passed by the respondents for compassionate appointment. Hence, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to consider the application dated 05.10.2000 of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 30.08.2010.

3. In view of the narrow prayer made, a direction is issued to the second respondent to pass orders on the application of the petitioner dated 05.10.2000 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 30.08.2010, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. This writ petition is disposed of with above direction. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial