Madras High Court
B.Vimala vs The Director on 6 January, 2021
W.P.No.20008 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.20008 of 2020
(Heard through VC)
B.Vimala .. Petitioner
-vs-
The Director,
Directorate of Employment and Training,
Employment Division 5th Floor,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. .. Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to offer the petitioner's
job considering petitioner's family condition as expeditiously as
possible.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Srinivasan
for M/s.Swaminathan Law Associates
For Respondent : Mr.J.Pothiraj
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition,
seeking a direction to the respondent to offer employment to her, by
considering her family condition, as expeditiously as possible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20008 of 2020
2. The case of the petitioner is that though she registered her
name with the employment exchange and sent various letters,
representations, communications to the office of the District
Employment, Chief Minister Cell, Mayor of Chennai Corporation, seeking
a suitable job at any Government Department, the same were rejected
stating that the petitioner has crossed the prescribed age limit.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
4. The relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, as
the writ petition itself is not maintainable. The plea raised by the
petitioner that her representations have not been considered by the
respondent to provide her a job cannot be gone into at this stage in this
writ petition, in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court
in the decision in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna
District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others, reported in
1996 (6) SCC 216, holding that the employment exchange is not the
only source of recruitment. The petitioner could have either very well
applied by verifying various advertisements published in newspapers,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20008 of 2020
on the basis of her qualification or could have taken steps to opt for self
employment. Without doing so, sending several representations to
various departments including to the Chief Minister's Cell of the State,
cannot be considered to be a correct method to seek for employment.
Moreover, the petitioner is 43 years old as on date and therefore, this
Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs.
06.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
rsi
To
The Director,
Directorate of Employment and Training,
Employment Division 5th Floor,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20008 of 2020
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
rsi
W.P.No.20008 of 2020
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
