Dismissed

L. Poongavanam v. the Govt., of Tamilnadu

Madras HC2 Nov 2017WA/1667/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition seeking employment under a BHEL scheme for displaced landowners. The court held that since one family member already secured employment under the scheme, the appellant was not entitled to another post as the Scheme allows only one employment per family. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; appeal dismissed.

L. Poongavanam Vs the Govt., of Tamilnadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:02.11.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

W.A No.1667 of 2013

¶6

L.Poongavanam ...Appellant/Petitioner Vs 1.The Government of Tamilnadu, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The General Manager, BHEL/BA7, Ranipet, Vellore District. 3.The Collector, Vellore, Vellore District. 4.The Convener and District Revenue Officer, Screening Committee, Vellore District, Vellore. 5.TheRevenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District. ...Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.10480 of 2012 dated 04.03.2013.

¶8

Prayer in WP.No.10480 of 2012: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in No. in RC. G3/42195/2011, G3/42239/2011, G3/42186/2011, G3/42202/2011, G3/42198/2011, G3/42188/2011, G3/42160/2011,G3/42249/2011 and G3/42213/2011 respectively dated 9.12.2011 passed by the 4th respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the 5th respondent to appointment the petitioner unskilled or for any other suitable post in BHEL for which the interview was called for.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Srinivasan

¶10

For Respondents: Ms.A.Sri Jayanthi Special Govt.Pleader for R1, 3 to 5

¶11

Mr.P.Zohn for

¶12

M/s.Fox Mandal Associates for R2

¶13

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

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.

¶16

This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 4 March, 2013 in W.P.No.10480 of 2012, whereby and where under the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for employment on the ground that the land owned by the family was acquired and as per the relevant Scheme, at least one member of the family is entitled for employment.

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the Government and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶18

The factual matrix indicates that the land owned by Thiru.Loganathan Pillai in S.No.156/3 was acquired by the Government for Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BHEL"). The Award dated 30 January, 1982 indicates that Thiru.Loganathan Pillai is survived by his children, L.Gunasekaran and L.Poongavanam, the appellant herein. BHEL framed a Scheme to give employment to at least one member from each family of the displaced land owners.

¶19

The appellant made a claim that the land owned by his family was acquired and as such, he is entitled to employment.

¶20

We are informed that pursuant to the Scheme, a Screening Committee was constituted. The case of the appellant was placed before the Screening Committee and it was rejected on the ground that one member of his family has already given employment.

¶21

The learned single Judge agreed with the contention taken by the Screening Committee and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.

¶22

The factual matrix very clearly indicates that Thiru. L.Gunasekaran s/o Thiru.Loganathan Pillai, who is none other than the brother of the appellant got employment in the category "Land Acquired Person". Since one member of the family, namely, the son of Loganathan Pillai has already got employment, the Screening Committee was perfectly correct in rejecting the request made by the appellant. The Scheme is very clear that employment would be given to at least one member of the family. Since the brother of the appellant already got employment, the appellant is not entitled to claim employment once again on the ground that the land was acquired for BHEL.

¶23

We are therefore of the view that the learned single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any reason to take a different view on the matter. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

In the up shot, we dismiss the intra court appeal. No costs.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

svki
To
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Industries Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The General Manager,
BHEL/BA7, Ranipet, Vellore District.
3.The Collector,
Vellore, Vellore District.
4.The Convener and District Revenue Officer,
Screening Committee,
Vellore District, Vellore.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ranipet, Vellore District.
+1cc to Mr.V.Srinivasan, Advocate SR.No.78048 dt.3.11.2017
+1cc to M/s.Fox Mandal & Associates, SR.No.77747
W.A No.1667 of 2013
½
MR(CO)
sm:30.11.2017

¶27

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

L. Poongavanam v. the Govt., of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L. Poongavanam v. the Govt., of Tamilnadu

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

Union of India Rep by Vs the Present Trustee

The Chief Engineer, Vs R.K.M.Devamsam

N. Raju Padayachi Vs the District Collector

C.Shankar Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs v.Srikanth

S. Martin Vs the Tamil Nadu Electrcity