Dismissed

The Chairman, v. S.Ponkumar

Madras HC6 Jun 2016WA(MD)/932/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board against a single judge order denying relaxation of height criteria. The court expressed respectful agreement with the Division Bench judgment in W.A(MD)No.1321 of 2014 and dismissed the appeal for the same reasons.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent was dismissed; no costs awarded.

The Chairman, Vs S.Ponkumar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.06.2016 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

Writ Appeal (MD) No.932 of 2016 in WP(MD)No. 12219 of 2012

¶6

1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 2.The Chairman/Members, Sub-Committee, Chennai Centre, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, 2^nd Floor,Anna Salai, Chennai-2. ...Appellants/Respondents

¶7

-Vs-.

¶8

S.Ponkumar ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶9

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 24.09.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.12219 of 2012. Prayer in WP(MD)No.12219 of 2012: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other writ, order to direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in R.C.No.R1/4344/2011 dated 22.08.2012 and quash the same as illegal consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to remeasure the petitioner height and allow the petitioner to participate in the other events if he has the required height.

¶10

For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, Special Government Pleader.

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkateswaran

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J )

¶14

The learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner have drawn our attention to the judgment rendered by the Honourable Division https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bench of this Court on 14.11.2014 in W.A(MD)No.1321 of 2014. The reasons have been spelt out in paragraph '7' of the said order.

¶15

¶16

We are in respectful agreement with the reasons assigned by the Honourable Division Bench in deciding the said writ appeal. Hence, the present appeal is also dismissed for the very same reasons as in the W.A(MD)No.1321 of 2014. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶19

/TRUE COPY/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

1.The Chairman,

¶23

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai,Chennai-2.

¶24

2.The Chairman/Members,

¶25

Sub-Committee,

¶26

Chennai Centre,Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, 2^nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶27

+1cc to M/S.R.Venkatateswaran, Advocate SR.No.28059

¶28

+1cc to M/S.THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR NO: 28304

¶29

gsr

¶30

JA-DB.SAR.iI/14.06.2016/2P-5C

¶31

Writ Appeal (MD) No.932 of 2016

¶32

06.06.2016

¶33

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

The Chairman, v. S.Ponkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman, v. S.Ponkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.M.Abdul Kader, Vs P.Ganesan

M.Nepoleon Vs the Sub-Registrar

Saratha Vs the Special Officer

V.Vellaisamy, Vs Kasi,S/O.Arunachala Chettiar

G.Panchavarnam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Thiagarajan Vs the Commissioner