1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.921 of 2011 P.Selvakumar : Petitioner vs. The District Employment Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.06.2010 and to make renewal of the petitioner's employment registration in the Live Register maintained by the respondent's office. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner, after finishing his school education in the year 1995, went to the respondent Employment Office during the year 2000 and got his qualification registered on 04.01.2000 and his Registration Number was 37/2000. Though it requires that the registration will have to be renewed once in three years, for reasons best known, the petitioner did not renew his registration and only in the month of June, 2010, he woke up and thought of seeking for renewal of his registration. Therefore, he sent a representation on 28.06.2010, directing the respondent to renew his employment exchange registration with retrospective date, otherwise, he may not get employment. The reason mentioned in the said communication was that since he was unwell and he was also informed that due to a ban order by the State Government from filling up the posts, the registration cannot be renewed and, therefore, he could not renew his registration earlier and he is expecting Government employment and if it is not renewed, he will be put to suffering. Having sent a representation, he has come forward to file the present Writ petition seeking for a direction to consider his representation. 2. Before giving such direction, it has to be seen whether the grounds raised by the petitioner are acceptable for any such renewal. The contention that there was a ban order and, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 therefore, there was no scope for renewal itself is misnomer, because the ban order itself excluded the Police, Health and Education departments from its purview and secondly, the ban order only applies to Government service and not to other services. Considering the nature of the petitioner's qualification, viz., school final, if he had registered his name, he could have been sent for any employment commensurate with his qualification. On the contrary, having registered his school education, subsequently, went through college education and became a graduate, instead of registering additional qualification, he now seeks for employment seniority, by sending such representation, that too, after a period of eight years. It must be noted that the Court cannot, by directing the respondent to consider the representation, revive a closed matter on the same cause of action and under the guise of giving such direction to the respondent without there being any legal obligation on the part of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be encouraged by this Court. 3. In the light of the above, there is no case made out to entertain the present Writ Petition and hence, the same stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Employment Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. +2cc to Mr.M.Govindan,Advocate, Sr.No.39653, 38088 +1cc to Mr.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate, Sr.No.39599 sml ssk/22.11.2011 /5c -2p/- Order made in W.P.(MD).No.921 of 2011 Dated:- 14.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/