1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1397 of 2011 A.Lilly Prema ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The Director, Directorate of Social Welfare and Nutritious Noon Meal Department, Chennai-600 005. 3.The District Collector, Karur District,Karur. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 02.11.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.12438 of 2011. WP(MD)No.12438 OF 2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.10.2011 seeking to give promotion. For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanan For Respondents: Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.Govt.Pleader. JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] The appellant has filed this writ appeal challenging the order of the writ court, dated 02.11.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.12438 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.10.2011, seeking for the relief of promotion. 2.Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By mutual consent, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission itself. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the writ court has not considered the limited prayer of the appellant but, went into the main question involved in the representation of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. 4.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record, including the order passed by the writ court. 6.At the outset, it is to be stated that the appellant filed the writ petition with a limited prayer seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation, dated 10.10.2011, made by him seeking promotion. However, the writ court went deep into the merits of the representation made by the appellant seeking promotion and rejected the writ petition. In view of the same, we are constrained to set aside the order of the writ court, dated 02.11.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.12438 of 2011, and consequently, without going into the merits of the representation of the appellant, dated 10.10.2011, and without expressing any view in respect of such representation, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 10.10.2011, and dispose of the same, by affording an opportunity to the appellant as well as to the relevant parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant shall furnish a fresh copy of his representation, dated 10.10.2011, to the 2nd respondent, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.The writ appeal stands disposed of, accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar gb To: 1.The Principal Secretary, Govt of Tamil Nadu, Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The Director, Directorate of Social Welfare and Nutritious Noon Meal Department, Chennai-600 005. 3.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur. 1CC TO THE SPL GOVT PLEADER SR: 42048: DM:2011:DEC:07:: Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1397 OF 2011 Dated:29.11.2011 2P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/