Dismissed

C. Aruna Devi v. the District Collector

Madras HC14 Mar 2014WA(MD)/419/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by the temporary appointee of a dismissed employee. It held that since the appellant's appointment was contingent on the dismissed employee's status and she admitted lack of due process was followed previously, the lower court's order setting aside the dismissal could not be interfered with.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed; lower court order is not interfered with.

C. Aruna Devi Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶3

Writ Appeal (MD) No.419 of 2014 and WP(MD)No. 6466 of 2011

¶4

C.Aruna Devi ... Appellant /4^th Respondent Vs.

¶5

1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶6

2.The Block Development Officer, Sathankulam Panchayat Union, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶7

3.J.Balaambigai President, Arasoor Panchayat, Arasoor, Sathankulam Panchayat Union, Thoothukudi District.

¶8

4.C.Ramar,

¶9

Panchayat Clerk (Removed from service) Arasoor Panchayat, Arasoor, Sathankulam Panchayat Union, Thoothukudi District.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 02.01.2014 made in W.P.(MD)No.6466 of 2011 on the file of this Court.

¶12

Prayer in WP(MD). 6466/ 2011 :

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, to call for the records in connection with the impugned orders of removal of service passed by the 3rd Respondent vide his proceedings in Order No.1/2009 and 2/2009 dated 29-01-2009 and 27-02-2009 respectively and quash the both as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all monetary and service benefits within stipulated time.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader.

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

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

¶19

This writ appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Judge setting aside an order of dismissal of the fourth respondent herein.

¶20

2.Heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶21

3.The fourth respondent herein was employed in the Arasoor Panchayat, of which the third respondent herein was the President. By proceedings dated 29.01.2009 and 27.02.2009, the fourth respondent was dismissed from service by the President. Therefore, challenging the order of dismissal, the fourth respondent filed a writ petition in W.P(MD) No.6466 of 2011.

¶22

4.On the ground that no enquiry worth the name was conducted and no opportunity was granted to the employee before the order of termination was passed, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition by an order dated 02.01.2014 and set aside the order of dismissal. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein who came to be appointed in the place of the fourth respondent has come up with the above writ appeal.

¶23

5.Admittedly, the appellant was appointed only in the place of the fourth respondent after her dismissal. Therefore, her appointment was naturally subject to the outcome of the challenge made by the fourth respondent to her own dismissal. It is not the case of the appellant that all principles of natural justice and all the procedures established by the law was followed by the third respondent before dismissing the fourth respondent from service. The right of the appellant is actually subordinate to the right of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge cannot be interfered with. Hence, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶30

2.The Block Development Officer, Sathankulam Panchayat Union, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.T.A.Ebenezer,Advocate in SR.No. 16121

¶32

+1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 16412. TS/26.03.2014/2P-5C

¶33

Writ Appeal (MD) No.419 of 2014

¶34

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

¶35

14.03.2014

C. Aruna Devi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Aruna Devi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Government of Tamil Nadu Vs P.Helen Cecil

The Principal Secretary to Vs a. Chakravarthy

The Manager Vs Chandrakumar

The Superintendent of Post Vs R.Sheela Rajarajan

N.K.Subbarayalu, Vs the Chairman and Managing

Tvl. Hotel Ark International Vs the State of Tamil Nadu