Dismissed

A.Thiyaragaanan S/O.S.Arthnari v. P.Mayalagu Rangarajan

Madras HC2 Dec 2015WA/4016/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The WritAppeal filed by appellants A.Thiyagarajan and K.Loganathan against an order dated 26.08.2004 was dismissed as infructuous. The Court found that the reservation policy had been implemented, resulting in the preparation of panels and subsequent promotions, rendering the appeal purposeless.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ appeal was dismissed as infructuous due to implementation of the reservation policy.

A.Thiyaragaanan S/O.S.Arthnari Vs P.Mayalagu… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 02-12-2015

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

and

¶6

The Hon’ble Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Writ Appeal No.4016 of 2004

¶7

and

¶8

WAMP.No.7534 of 2004

¶9

--------------
1.A.Thiyagarajan
2.K.Loganathan ..Appellants/3rd Party
-Versus-
1.P.Mayalagu
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary to Government
Environment & Forest Department
Secretariat, Chennai 9.
3.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai 600015. ..Respondents

¶10

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.08.2004 made in W.P.No.24274 of 2004.

¶11

WP.24274 2004:- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration Declaring that Rule 8 (A) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules as unconstitutional and ultravires being violative of Art.16(4) of the Constitution of India and the provision for the carry forward vacancies and consequently direct the respondent to notify the panel for promotion to the Post of Assistant Conservator of Forests on the basis of Reservation Policy and Rotation and the preference to the carry forward vacancies under Art.16(4)of the Constitution of India.

¶12

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

¶13

For Appellant ::: No appearance

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

(Judgement of the Court was made by the Honourable The Chief Justice)

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the writ appeal has become infructuous and for that matter even the petition filed by the respondents has become infructuous, despite orders having been passed to consider the respondents in terms of the appeal memorandum dated 20.08.2004. A number of panels were prepared after that and promotions made.

¶17

The appeal is thus dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected WAMP is closed. No costs.

¶18

Ksr Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government Environment & Forest Department Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600015. CTK/CO KR/18/12 W.A.No.4016 of 2004

¶19

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

A.Thiyaragaanan S/O.S.Arthnari v. P.Mayalagu Rangarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Thiyaragaanan S/O.S.Arthnari v. P.Mayalagu Rangarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Mani Vs The Collector of Kancheepuram

Telugu Sahithya Parishath Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by

K.Jayapal Vs the District Collector

P.Sujan Sundari Vs T.N.State Human Rights

R.Mariyammal Vs The District Collector

K.Satheesh Kumar Vs The Member Secretary