The High Court dismissed two Writ Appeals filed under the Letters Patent against Single Judge orders quashing petitions seeking directions to sign attendance registers. The appeals were dismissed as the underlying appointments were found illegal due to non-compliance with recruitment rules.
The Writ Appeals were dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.04.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A.(MD)Nos.94 and 95 of 2014
W.A.(MD)No.94/2014:
P.Sureshkumar
... Appellant/6th Petitioner Vs.
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 600 034.
... Respondents 1 & 2/ Respondents
3.N.Selvaraj 4.A.Rathinavel 5.M.Gopinath 6.P.Gunalan 7.P.Ganesan 8.G.Kalaiselvan 9.R.Rasukannu 10.S.Ashok Kumar 11.V.Veeramani 12.S.Prakash 13.M.Kumar 14.B.Prabakaran 15.P.Ananthakumar 16.J.Kaliyamurthy 17.B.Ganesan 18.R.Jeyaraman 19.S.Periyannan 20.A.Muthumalai 21.M.Karthikeyan 22.P.Ravichandran 23.K.Natarajan ... Respondents 3 to 23/ Petitioners 1 to 5 & 7 to 22
[Notice to the respondents 3 to 23 may be dispensed with, since they are formal parties]
2
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 27.06.2012, made in W.P.(MD) No.7744 of 2011.
Prayer in WP(MD). 7744/ 2011 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ of Order or Direction in the nature of Writ directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioners to sign the attendance register.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sreenivasan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.V.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader
W.A.(MD)No.95 of 2014:-
Veldurai ... Appellant/3rd Petitioner
Vs.
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 600 034.
... Respondents 1 & 2/ Respondents
3.V.Subramanian
4.B.Mathukumar
5.K.Sudarsanan ... Respondents 3 to 5/ Petitioners 1, 2 & 4
[Notice to the respondents 3 to 5 may be
dispensed with, since they are formal parties]
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 27.06.2012, made in W.P.(MD) No.7747 of 2011.
Prayer in WP(MD). 7747/ 2011 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ of Order or Direction in the nature of Writ directing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioners to sign the attendance register.
3
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sreenivasan For R1 & R2 : Mr.V.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
Heard Mr.R.Sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 in both the Writ Appeals.
2.These Writ Appeals are directed against the order, dated 27.06.2012 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.7744 & 7747 of 2011.
3.The appellants filed the Writ Petitions seeking a direction to the second respondent to permit them to sign the Attendance Register.
4.The abovesaid Writ Petitions were dismissed on the ground that unless the termination is declared as illegal, a direction cannot be given for restoration of the appellants in service. Furthermore, the respondents 1 and 2 took a specific stand that without calling for applications from the Employment Exchange and without any advertisement and without conducting interview, the appellants claimed to have been appointed and such appointment is wholly illegal. Thus, we are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(MD)Nos.7744 to 7748 and 9490 of 2011. Accordingly, the impugned order does not call for any interference by us. Hence, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(AD-II)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai – 600 034.
4
+1cc to Mr.R.Nandakumar, Advocate Sr.No.54277
smn2
vb/mms/15.05.2017/4p/4c
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD)Nos.94 and 95 of 2014 26.04.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Appeal seeking direction to permit sign the Attendance Register should be allowed when the prior Writ Petitions were dismissed on grounds of illegal appointment.
Whether the order dismissing Writ Petitions on merits calls for interference in these Writ Appeals.
The Court found the appointments wholly illegal as there was no calling of applications, advertisement, or interviews, leading to dismissal of the appeals.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Sureshkumar
Veldurai
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
The Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, Samayapuram
T.S. Sivagnanam
P. Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
