LAWS(MAD)-2007-4-392

N KANNAKI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On April 18, 2007
N Kannaki Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was functioning as a principal District Munsif, Poonamallee when she was served with the impugned order of compulsory retirement. She was relieved from service on 10 October 2006. According to her, she has served to the best of her ability and there is nothing wrong with her disposal of cases or with regard to her integrity, that warrants the order of compulsory retirement. According to the petitioner, the remarks made in the annual confidential report for the period from 1 January 2001 to 23 July 2001 and again from 21 January 2002 and 9 December 2002, cannot be the basis for the order of compulsory retirement, since she was neither given notice nor allowed to make any representation on the allegations or information received. The order, dated 9 October 2006, in Notification No. 194 of 2006 gives her a right to file a review petition within one month from the date of receipt of the order from the Government. Therefore, she made a representation for reviewing the order with the Government on October 2006. Till date, no orders have been passed and therefore, this writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the review petition filed by her.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out to any legal provision which enables her to file a review petition. The learned counsel submits that except the last sentence in the impugned notification, which permits the petitioner to file a review petition, if she so desires, there is no provision of law under which the review petition can be filed.

(3.) THE Government has no power to review this matter. The said sentence found in the impugned notification also does not have constitutional approval. In these circumstances, the mandamus sought for cannot be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. If the petitioner has a remedy before any other forum, this dismissal will not stand in her way. Writ petition dismissed.