Partly allowed

M. Sivachandran, v. Tneb., Rep. by Its Chairman

Madras HC6 Mar 2014WA(MD)/378/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the argument to keep one post vacant for petitioners challenging a recruitment list. The Court held that the only permissible interim order is to state that appointments made during pendency are subject to the final outcome.

What did the court decide?

Modified the interim order to provide that any appointment made pending the writ petition is subject to its final outcome.

M. Sivachandran, Vs Tneb., Rep. by Its Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.03.2014

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶7

Writ Appeal (MD) No.378 of 2014

¶8

M.Sivachandran ... Appellant/Petitioner/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, represented by its Chairman,

¶11

800, Anna Salai,

¶12

Chennai 22

¶13

2.The Director of Technical Education, Tamil Nadu, Guindy, Chennai. ... Respondents/Respondents/Respondents

¶14

Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.02.2014 made in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014 in W.P.(MD) No.3512 of 2014 on the file of this Court.

¶15

Prayer in MP(MD). 2/ 2014 in WP(MD).3512/2014 :

¶16

To pass an order of ad interim stay of the operation and all the further proceedings of the selection list for the post of Technical Assistant (EEE) published by the respondent corporation on 24.2.2014 on the file of the 1st Respondent pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶17

Prayer in WP(MD). 3512/ 2014 :

¶18

To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to selection list for the post of Technical Assistant (EEE) published by the respondent corporation on 24.2.2014 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent Board to conduct recruitment afresh for the post of Technical Assistant(EEE) and pass any other orders.

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For 1^st Respondent : Mr.S.Dhayalan For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader.

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J. )

¶22

The writ appeal arises out of an interim order passed pending writ petition, directing the respondent to keep one post vacant.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶24

¶25

3.The challenge made by the appellant along with four others in a batch of writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.3509 to 3513 of 2014 was to a selection list for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (EEE) in the respondent Corporation.

¶26

4.When all the five writ petitions came up for admission, this Court ordered notice of motion in the writ petition. The appellant and four others had also asked for interim stay of operation of the selection list. But this Court merely directed the respondents to reserve one post vacant for the writ petitioners. Aggrieved by the refusal of the learned Judge to grant interim stay of the selection list, the appellant is before this Court.

¶27

5.It is well settled that in a matter relating to a challenge to the selection list of candidates for appointment to a post, the only interim order that could be granted by a Court is to state that any appointment made during the pendency of the writ petition will be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The question of keeping one post vacant for the petitioner does not arise in such cases.

¶28

6.It has come to the notice of this Court that wherever 10 or 15 vacancies are sought to be filled up, thousands of candidates apply, out of whom many non selected candidates come up with writ petitions and seek such interim orders. Sometimes, the number of posts ordered to be kept vacant by the Court far exceeds even the number of vacancies. This is why such interim orders, cannot be passed in matters relating to appointment or promotion. Therefore, the writ appeal is ordered modifying the interim order passed by the learned Judge to the following effect:-

¶29

"Any appointment made during the pendency of the writ petition will be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition".

¶30

7.The writ petition is directed to be listed, if service of notice is already completed, for final hearing before the appropriate Bench in the fourth week of March 2014.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶33

/TRUE COPY/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

The Director of Technical Education,

¶37

Tamil Nadu, Guindy, Chennai.

¶38

The Chairman,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai,Chennai 22.

¶39

Copy to: Section Officer,

¶40

Writ Section,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. +1cc to Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, Advocate SR.No.14268 +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.14902

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

Writ Appeal (MD) No.378 of 2014 06.03.2014

¶43

sms

¶44

PA/17.03.2014/2P/6C

M. Sivachandran, v. Tneb., Rep. by Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sivachandran, v. Tneb., Rep. by Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Elavarasan, Vs the Secretary

Micheal, Vs the District Collector

S. Ponnuchamy Vs the District Collector

The Manager Director, Vs M.Muniyasamy

M/S. Sec Cfs, a Division of Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its

Palaniappan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu