Disposed

C.Deivendran v. the Commissioner

Madras HC10 Dec 2014WP/17934/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition seeking a direction to allow the petitioner to work as N.M.R. in Karaikudi Municipality following denial due to a criminal case, the Court noted that the petitioner had already been regularised in service. Consequently, the writ petition was closed as there was nothing left to adjudicate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed as the petitioner had already been regularised in service, rendering the prayer moot. No costs awarded.

C.Deivendran Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.12.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.NO.17934 OF 2007 (O.A.NO.2152 OF 2004)

¶6

C.Deivendran .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Commissioner Karaikudi Municipality Karaikudi. .. Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.2152 of 2004 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to work as N.M.R. In the Karaikudi Municipality by considering his representation dated 11.02.2004.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kalaichelvan For Respondent : Mr.R.Govindasamy Additional Government Pleader O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner was working as N.M.R in Karaikudi Municipality. He was denied employment pursuant to some criminal case, for which, according to him, he was not connected.

¶12

2.Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent to allow him to work as N.M.R at Karaikudi Municipality.

¶13

3.Today, the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the Service Register of the petitioner, wherein the following entries are made:

¶14

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

¶15

“murhiz vz; 21/ efuhl;rp eph;thfk; kw;Wk; FoePh; tH';fy; Jiw/ ehs; 23.02.2006d;go/ efuhl;rp eph;thf Mizahsh; brd;id mth;fspd; Rw;wwpf;if e/f/vz/12854-2006-vg;2/ ehs; 20.11.2006d;go kw;Wk; efuhl;rp eph;thf kz;ly ,af;Feh; kJiu mth;fspd; fojk; e/f/vz/4763-1999-gp1/ ehs; 08.02.2007-d;goa[k; , e;efh; kd;wk; epakdf;FG jPh;khdk; vz;.3/ ehs; 27.6.2007-y; jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;Ls;sgo/ fhiuf;Fo efuhl;rpapd; jw;fhypf jpdf;Typ gzpahsh; jpU.rp.bja;nte;jpuid/ jw;fhypf jpdf;Typ gzpapypUe;J tud;Kiwg;gLj;jp ,e;efuhl;rpapy; gjptiw vGj;jh; gzpapy; jw;fhypfkhf epakdk; bra;J cj;jputplg;gl;lJ. “

¶16

4.As per the entries in the Service Register, the petitioner was continued in service and he was also regularised in service. 5.In view of the same, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ petition and accordingly, the same stands closed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar TK To The Commissioner Karaikudi Municipality Karaikudi. 1 cc to Mr.C.Kalaichelvan ,Advocate, SR.No.60796 W.P.NO.17934 OF 2007 (O.A.NO.2152 OF 2004) rsk(co) pmk.20.12.2014

¶17

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

C.Deivendran v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Deivendran v. the Commissioner

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

K.A. Kanthasamy Vs the State Government Rep.

R. Muthu, Vs the Union of India

Vs

N.Thilayarkarasi Vs the Dy Inspector General of

R. Sathyanarayana Vs the Government of India

A.Pandian Vs the State of Tamilnadu