1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:14.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA WP(MD)No.14274 of 2011 R.Kandasamy :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Technical Education,Chennai-25. 3.The Principal,Arulmighu Palaniandavar Polytechnic College, Palani, Dindigul District. :Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass an order of giving preference to the Senior Lecturers for the post of Head of Department in the Government Aided Polytechnic College, on par with that of the Senior Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges, as per G.O.Ms.No.195, Higher Education, dated 18.08.2011 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.11.2011. For Petitioner :Mr.V.paneerselvam for M/s.C.S.Associates For Respondents :Mr.B.Pugazhenthi 1 and 2 Special Government Pleader. ORDER The petitioner/R.Kandasamy has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to pass an order of giving preference to the Senior Lecturers for the post of Head of Department in the Government Aided Polytechnic College, on par with that of the Senior Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges, as per G.O.Ms.No.195, Higher Education, dated 18.08.2011 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 09.11.2011. 2.Mr.B.Pugazhenthi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3.The petitioner has joined as Instructor in Civil Engineering on 16.6.1988 and on completion of 11 years of service, he was upgraded as Senior Lecturer on 19.08.1999. While so, the Government has issued an order prescribing requisite qualification to become Head of the Department stating that 10 years of teaching experience is essentially required. As a result of the same, the post of Head of the Department can be filled up even from among the junior most lecturer provided they possess 10 years of teaching experience to that of the Senior lecturer post. As this gives rise to treat the unequals as equals, therefore, the petitioner made a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 representation, dated 27.10.2010 to the second respondent to fill up the post of Head of the Department by promoting from among the senior Lecturers. But the second respondent rejected the same on 26.6.2011. As against that, the petitioner made further representation to the first respondent, dated 09.11.2011. But the said representation has not been considered. 4.In the meanwhile, the petitioner has come to this Court by filing the present Writ Petition on the ground that they have to fill up the Head of the Department post with the available lecturers. During the pendency of the representation, dated 09.11.2011, since the respondents are going to fill up the post of Head of Department in the third respondent College, the counsel for the petitioner sought for suitable direction therefor. 5.Since the petitioner has been working as Head of the Department on upgraded post, he has got the apprehension that on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 25.5.2011, the respondents may even fill up the post of Head of Department by appointing junior lecturer on regular selection basis. Therefore, he has prayed for disposal of the pending representation, dated 09.11.2011. 6.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the present Writ Petition seeking direction to dispose of the representation, dated 9.11.2011 may not be considered for the reason that the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition only to dispose of the representation, dated 09.11.2011 since the respondent has already dismissed a similar representation dated 27.10.2010. This submission finds some force for the reason that the petitioner has approached the second respondent on 27.10.2010 and the second respondent also appears to have rejected the same as early as on 20.08.2011 and then only the petitioner has preferred the second representation dated 08.11.2011 to the first respondent. Hence the petitioner has to challenge his rejection order if he is aggrieved, without doing so, he cannot ask for a direction to dispode of his representation. Hence his prayer to dispose of his representation may not be granted. 7.Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Technical Education, Chennai-25. RP/23.01.2012/2P/3C. W.P(MD)No.14274 OF 2011 . https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/