1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1744 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 S.Savitha ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. The District Athidravidar and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Officer, Collector Office Campus, Karur. ... Respondent/Respondent Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 08.12.2011, made in W.P.(MD) No.13943 of 2011. Prayer in WP.(MD).No.13943/2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to fix a date for personal Interview of the petitioner. For Appellant : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan For Respondent : Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J) The appellant has come forward with this appeal challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 08.12.2011, made in W.P.(MD).No.13943 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, seeking for the relief of a direction to the respondent herein to fix a date of personal interview of the appellant. 2.Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. 3.By mutual consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that though the writ petition was dismissed by the writ Court, the appellant would be satisfied, if a direction is given to the respondent herein to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 18.11.2011. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the selection process is yet to be completed. 5.Heard the learned Government Advocate, on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is contended that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the writ Court has observed that the selection process has already been completed and as such, there is no question of considering the any representation. 6.The fact remains that the writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking for the relief of a direction to the respondent herein to fix the date of personal interview, was dismissed on the ground that the selection process was completed. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the selection process is yet to be completed and that the appellant would be satisfied, if a direction is given to the respondent to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 18.11.2011. 7.In view of the above, in the event of the appellant herein has given any such representation, dated 18.11.2011 and in the event of the selection process is yet to be completed, we are constrained to direct the respondent herein to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 18.11.2011, by affording opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant herein. Such process shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the representation, dated 18.11.2011, said to have been submitted by the appellant herein. 8.The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The District Athidravidar and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Officer, Collector Office, Campus, Karur +1cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.45942 gcg GH : 10.01.2012 : 2p/3c Judgment In W.A.(MD)No.1744 of 2011 and MP.(MD).No.1 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/