IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.03.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.NO.2173 of 2006 Mr.M.Selvanathan ... Petitioner. Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The Municipal Commissioner, Erode. ... Respondents. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the order in O.Mu.No.14287/2005/C1 dated 16.09.2005, quash the same and issue directions to the respondents to reappointment the petitioner in service in Erode Municipality, and to absorb him in regular establishment. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondent : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, Government Advocate. O R D E R This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the order in O.Mu.No.14287/2005/C1 dated 16.09.2005, quash the same and issue directions to the respondents to reappointment the petitioner in service in Erode Municipality, and to absorb him in regular establishment. 2.The claim of the petitioner for reappointment was rejected by the second respondent vide proceedings dated O.Mu.No.14287/2005/C1 dated 16.09.2005. As against the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in the form of a detailed representation to the first respondent on 01.12.2005 and that has not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been considered and disposed of so far. In the mean while, the writ petition has been filed relying upon the G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 27.05.1999. 3.At the time of final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon GO.Ms.No.22 P and AR Department dated 25.02.2006 and states that in view of the changed circumstances and subsequent events, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to make further representation to the first respondent in continuation of the earlier representation dated 01.12.2005 and the first respondent may be directed to consider the entire issue afresh on merits. 4.Heard Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 5.in view of the above submission and the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is given liberty to make further representation in continuation of the earlier representation dated 01.12.2005, along with a copy of this order and such representation shall be considered and disposed of on merits within a period of two months thereafter. 6.This writ petition stands disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar vsm To 1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The municipal Commissioner, Erode. + One CC to Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate Sr.No.13915 + Two CC to Government Pleader, High Court, Madras-104 Sr.Nos.11909 and 14051 W.P.No.2173 Of 2006 RSN(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/