Dismissed

A.v.Kulandaivel v. the Chairman

Madras HC5 Nov 2019WP/21894/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Madras examined a challenge to quota restrictions in TNEB Service Regulations. Due to the non-appearance of the petitioners at multiple hearings, the Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed for non-prosecution; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

A.v.Kulandaivel Vs the Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.21894 of 2004 W.M.P.No.41509 of 2015

¶6

A.V.Kulandaivel
2. R.Kumaran
3. P.Vaikundamani ... Petitioners
v.
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
No.800, Anna Salai
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
NPKRR Maligai, No.800, Anna Salai,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the Regulation 92 of the TNEB Service Regulations in so far as it restricts the quota for B.E. (Electronics & Communications) holders in the grade of helpers to 5% and quash the same as illegal and directing the respondents to consider petitioners herein for empanelment as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as a one time exemption in the above Rule.

¶8

For Petitioners : No Appearance

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dilip Kumar

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

When the matter was listed for hearing on 23.10.2019, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, hence, the matter was adjourned to 04.11.2019. On 04.11.2019 also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, the Registry was directed to list the matter under the caption “for dismissal” on 05.11.2019. Though the matter has been listed under the caption “for dismissal” today, none

¶12

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

¶13

appeared for the petitioners. In these circumstances, , this Court has no other option except to dismiss the Writ Petition for non prosecution. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶14

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Rj
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
No.800, Anna Salai,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
NPKRR Maligai,
No.800, Anna Salai,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
+1cc to Mr.P.R.Dilip Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.92684
W.P.No.21894 of 2004
W.M.P.No.41509 of 2015
SS(CO)
CS/28/11/2019

¶15

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

A.v.Kulandaivel v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.v.Kulandaivel v. the Chairman

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

Rajkumar Vs Shabeetha Jesudoss

G.Doss Vs the Zonal Manager, Food

K.Chandran Vs State of Tamilnadu

V.K.Elumalai Vs the Registrar of Co-Op

Varalakshmi Vs the Secretary to Government

G.Nagusamy Vs the District Revenue Officer