Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Aug 31, 2016

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1188609

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1188609
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: T. Raja
Decided On: Aug 31, 2016
Case Number: W.P (MD).No.15590 of 2016
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

t. raja, j. 1. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier when the petitioner filed w.p.no.4570 of 2006 for alternative employment, this court, by an order dated 31.07.2006, directed the respondents not to assign seat work to the petitioner, due to his mental illness. pursuant to the orders of this court, the petitioner was posted as assistant in the divisional excise office, theni, which involves collection of money, however, by impugned order dated 10.08.2016, the petitioner has been transferred and posted at the office of the special tahsildar, sibcot unit 3, bodinayakkanur at theni, which is having a full time desk work. 2. in view of the difficulty expressed by the petitioner, the learned govt. advocate is directed to get specific instruction whether the petitioner could be accommodated in a post which is having no desk work. 3. post the matter on 06.09.2016.

Full Judgment

T. Raja, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier when the petitioner filed W.P.No.4570 of 2006 for alternative employment, this Court, by an order dated 31.07.2006, directed the respondents not to assign seat work to the petitioner, due to his mental illness. Pursuant to the orders of this court, the petitioner was posted as Assistant in the Divisional Excise Office, Theni, which involves collection of money, however, by impugned order dated 10.08.2016, the petitioner has been transferred and posted at the office of the Special Tahsildar, SIBCOT Unit 3, Bodinayakkanur at Theni, which is having a full time desk work.

2. In view of the difficulty expressed by the petitioner, the learned Govt. Advocate is directed to get specific instruction whether the petitioner could be accommodated in a post which is having no desk work.

3. Post the matter on 06.09.2016.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Education Same Judge T. Raja