1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD).No.1160 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 K.Maruthupandi : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary/Chairman, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, 10th Floor, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation, 759, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the appeal of the petitioner dated 30.12.2009, in the light of Service Rules and also consequently, directing the respondents to re- fix the seniority and to promote the petitioner as Assistant Manager in the second respondent Corporation on par with his juniors with all monetary and attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.N.Elango Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr.S.Natarajan O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the appeal filed by him dated 30.12.2009, in the light of the Service Rules and also consequently, directing the respondents to re-fix the seniority and to promote him as Assistant Manager in the second respondent Corporation on par with his juniors. 3. The petitioner challenging the order of the second respondent dated 17.06.2008, denying him promotion, has filed an appeal before the first respondent. Seeking disposal of the said appeal, he has filed the present Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent pointed out that the Service Rules pertaining to the Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Limited, does not contemplate any appeal before the first respondent against the order of the second respondent. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, there cannot be any direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was directed to point out in the Service Rules referred to above whether any appeal remedy is available with the first respondent. However, he is unable to point out any Rules regarding the same. 6. A Mandamus will lie, only if there is a statutory duty lies on the person, who is expected to pass orders. In the given case on hand, since no appeal remedy lies with the first respondent, I am unable to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner. 7. In fine, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Secretary/Chairman, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, 10th Floor, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation, 759, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.7532 +1CC TO M/S.VEERAKATHIRAVAN, ADVOCATE SR.7297 +1CC TO M/S.S.NATARAJAN, ADVOCATE SR.7302 Sml SR : 28.03.2011 : 2p/6c Order made in W.P.(MD).No.1160 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/