Dismissed

N.Palanivel v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC2 Nov 2020WA(MD)/973/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of a petition seeking regularization of service. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's view that impugned orders were distinct and required separate petitions, disregarding the common relief sought.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed with liberty to file separate writ petitions along with a common typed set of papers.

N.Palanivel Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.973 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.11.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶4

W.A.(MD)No.973 of 2020

¶5

N.Palanivel 2. L.Adaikalasamy 3. M.Sundher Kumar 4. N.Baskar 5. K.Thirumugan 6. V.Balakrishnan 7. S.Muthiya 8. M.S.Ravichandran 9. R.Sambath 10. L.Maghendiran 11. P.Azagesan 12. A.Sivapathi 13. R.Kamalakannan 14. R.Senthilkumar 15. C.Saravanan 16. S.Ravi 17. M.Kamalakannan 18. S.Selvakumar 19. A.Musthaba

¶6

... Appellants

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶9

Rep. by the Secretary to Government,

¶10

Department of Agriculture,

¶11

Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶13

The Joint Director of Agriculture,

¶14

Mannapuram, Trichy – 620 020.

¶15

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Kattuthottam, Thanjavur – 613 501.

¶16

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Sir.C.V.Raman Street, Tiruvallur District.

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.A.(MD)No.973 of 2020

¶20

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Cherry Road, Salem – 636 001.

¶21

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Gunduisalai Road, Semmandaram, Cuddalore.

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, against the order dated 03.09.2020 passed in W.M.P.(MD)No.9513 of 2020 in W.P.(MD)SR.No.29798 of 2020.

¶24

Prayer in WMP(MD). 9513/ 2020 :

¶25

to permit the petitioner to file a single Writ Petition and thus render justice.

¶26

Prayer in WP(MD).29798/2020

¶27

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in connection with the order passed by the Respondent in Nos.3 to 7 in Letter No.A3/3998/2019, dated 13.01.2020 in Letter No.A2/811/2014, dated 20.01.2020, in Letter No.A5/14676/2015 dated 20.01.2020 in Letter No. A4/122220/2015, dated 21.01.2020 and in Letter No. AA2/810/2020 dated 28.01.2020 abd quash the same and consequently direcing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners in the post of Night Watchman in the daprtment of agriculture with effect from the date of comppletion of 10 years of service with all monetary and service benefits within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶28

For Appellants : Mr.D.Selvanayagam For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthugeethaiyan, Special Government Pleader

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. KIRUBAKARAN, J. ]

¶31

This Writ Appeal has been filed against the dismissal order of 2B petition filed by the appellants/petitioners.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶33

It is seen from the records that the learned Single Judge found that the orders challenged are different impugned orders and passed by different Authorities on different dates. Though the relief sought for, may be one and the same, the same cannot be a ground for allowing the appellants/petitioners to file a single writ petition. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge cannot be

¶34

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

¶35

2/3

¶36

W.A.(MD)No.973 of 2020

¶37

found fault. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellants to file separate writ petitions along with a common typed set of papers. No costs.

¶39

ogy

¶40

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶41

¶42

The Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶43

The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶44

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Mannapuram, Trichy – 620 020.

¶45

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Kattuthottam, Thanjavur – 613 501.

¶46

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Sir.C.V.Raman Street, Tiruvallur District.

¶47

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Cherry Road, Salem – 636 001 .

¶48

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Gunduisalai Road, Semmandaram,

¶49

Cuddalore. W.A.(MD)No.973 of 2020 02.11.2020

¶50

VR(CO) KB(11.11.2020) 3P 8C

¶51

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

¶52

3/3

N.Palanivel v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Palanivel v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thangeswaran, Vs G.Latha, I.A.S.

G. Devendhiran (Roll No. 17ST06011089) Vs G.Latha,I.a.S

The Chairman Vs G.Sasikumar

S.Nicolas Prabu Vs the District Educational Officer

C.Poovasalingam Vs the District Revenue Officer

The Pallivasal Vs the Assistant Divisional Engineer