Dismissed

S.Anantha Narayanan v. the Director of Rural Develop

Madras HC12 Dec 2018WP/30853/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to regularize the petitioner's services as Panchayat Assistant and appoint him as Junior Assistant. The Court held that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right where recruitment rules were not followed.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought to regularize petitioner's services and appoint him as Junior Assistant was dismissed.

S.Anantha Narayanan Vs the Director of Rural… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated :: 12.12.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P. No.30853 of 2005 in WP.MP.NO.33814/05

¶6

1 S.ANANTHA NARAYANAN ... petitioner

¶7

Vs
1 THE DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PANAGAL BUILDING CHENNAI-600 015
2 THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR
CUDDALORE DISTRICT CUDDALORE
3 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
(V.P) KEERAPALAYAM PANCHAYAT UNION
CUDDALORE DISTRICT
4 THE PRESIDENT
VADAPAKKAM PANCHAYAT
KEERAPALAYAM PANCHAYAT
UNION CUDDALORE DISTRICT ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Panchayat Assistant and consequently appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the Rural Development Department as per G.O.Ms.No.52 rural Development Department dated 20.3.1998.

¶9

For petitioner ... Mr.P.Ganesan For respondents ... Mrs.R.Janaki, A.G.P. For respondents 1 and 2 Mr.R.Chandrasekaran, for R-3 O R D E R

¶10

The relief sought for in the Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as panchayat Assistant and consequently appoint him as Junior Assistant in the Rural Development Department as per G.O.Ms.No.52 Rural Development Department dated 20.3.1998.

¶11

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

¶12

The Writ Petitioner states that he was appointed as a part time Panchayat Assistant at Kanur panchayat, from 1.1.1998 in retirement vacancy. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioner was appointed as a part time employee initially, due to passage of long time, his services would have been regularized by now.

¶13

If the services of the petitioner is already regularized, then the petitioner may not have any grievance. However, regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as recruitment to public posts has to be made by following the recruitment rules in force, by providing equal opportunities to all to participate in the selection process.

¶14

In view of the fact that the Writ Petitioner was appointed as part time Panchayat Assistant during the year 1998, this Court is not inclined to consider the relief as sought for in the present Writ Petition, at this point of time. If the petitioner has any grievance, it is left open to him to approach the Competent Authority in the manner know to law.

¶15

With this observation, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.33814 of 2005 is
also dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tar
To
1 THE DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PANAGAL BUILDING CHENNAI-600 015
2 THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR
CUDDALORE DISTRICT CUDDALORE
3 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
(V.P) KEERAPALAYAM PANCHAYAT UNION
CUDDALORE DISTRICT

¶16

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

¶17

4 THE PRESIDENT VADAPAKKAM PANCHAYAT KEERAPALAYAM PANCHAYAT UNION CUDDALORE DISTRICT

¶18

+1cc to Government Pleader sr.no.86698

¶19

W.P. No.30853 of 2005

¶20

spd(co) nr 22/01/2019

¶21

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

S.Anantha Narayanan v. the Director of Rural Develop

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anantha Narayanan v. the Director of Rural Develop

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

S. Manickam, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S. Gee Gee Granites (P) Ltd. Vs State of Tamilnadu

S.Ramalingam Vs Income Tax Recovery Officer

M/s.Gbr Metal p Ltd. Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

G. Govindarajan, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Velappan, Vs Superintendent of Police