Dismissed

G.Peter Arul Selvan v. the Commissioner of

Madras HC29 Aug 2017WP(MD)/16184/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed in Madras High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to permit the petitioner to continue as a temporary sanitary worker and sign in the attendance register was dismissed. The Court held that without a produced appointment order, the appointment must be an unauthorized back door entry, barring the claim.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue and sign in the attendance register is denied.

G.Peter Arul Selvan Vs the Commissioner of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.08.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.16184 of 2017

¶7

G.Peter Arul Selvan : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk,

¶10

Chennai -5.

¶11

The Commissioner, Colachel Municipality, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents permitting the petitioner to continue as temporary sanitary worker and allow the petitioner to sign in the daily attendance register.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajkumar Sen For Respondent : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

¶16

By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

2.The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as a temporary sanitary worker and also permit him to sign in the daily attendance register.

¶18

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Worker in the second respondent Municipality on 23.03.2005, on daily wage basis for a sum of Rs.25/- per day which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.100/- per day. The learned counsel would further submit that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as the petitioner has been appointed through employment exchange of Kanyakumari District, he is entitled for regularization of his

¶19

¶20

service.

¶21

4.At this stage, when this Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to when the petitioner was appointed through the employment exchange, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no appointment order has been produced by the respondent Municipality. If the petitioner is appointed through employment exchange, then the order of appointment should be produced before this Court. When there is no order of appointment, it is an appointment through back door entry. Hence, the petitioner cannot approach this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to continue in the said post.

¶22

5.The Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai -5.

¶28

The Commissioner, Colachel Municipality, Kanyakumari District.

¶29

- 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 75338 + 1 CC TO Mr.A.RAJKUMAR SEN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 75265 MR/MRN

¶30

TE/KK/SAR-II : 20/10/2017 : 2P/5C

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.16184 of 2017 29.08.2017

¶32

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

G.Peter Arul Selvan v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Peter Arul Selvan v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Pasumpon, Vs the Assistant Engineer

K.Savadammal Vs the District Collector

S.Ravichandran, Vs State of Tamilnadu Represented

K. Ramalingam Vs the Principal Secretary to

P.Saravanan Vs the Chairman

P.Karthik, S/O.v.Pandi, Vs the Chairman