You may also like...
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.No.7825 of 2020 full order. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the Corporation is to be directed to re-visit the entire issue afresh. Hence, the impugned order dated 24.03.2020 made in SZ/MKTG passed by the respondent, is hereby set aside. The respondent Corporation is directed to conduct an enquiry into the claim of the petitioner by calling for necessary evidence that are available and in the process, examine the petitioner himself and any other officials involved in the subject selection. On conclusion of the enquiry, if it is unimpeachably proved that the petitioner was a person who attended the main examination, the Corporation is directed to complete the process of interview and in the process, if the petitioner successful, appoint him to the post of Apprentice Development Officer. It is also made clear that in any case, the result of the enquiry shall also be communicated to the petitioner.
by Sekar Reporter · Published February 11, 2021
Lita Srinivasan Two: The judgement referred to by KCJ is also referred to by Rajasurya J in the citation sent by me . Besides this there were 4 English decisions referred by Rajasuriya J in arriving at this decision that a trust has the locus standi to file for defamation .
by Sekar Reporter · Published December 2, 2019