A writ petition challenging employment proceedings was dismissed as the relief could not be considered due to a 10-year lapse since the impugned action, during which other appointees worked and received promotions.
Writ petition disposed of; relief sought cannot be considered due to 10-year lapse and subsequent appointments.
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.
W.P.(MD)No.10038 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.11.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD)No.10038 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 P.Kangaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
2.Assistant Director-Town Panchayath Collectorate, Madurai.
3.Executive Officer, Palamedu Town Panchayath, Alanganallur,
Madurai District.
4.The Assistant Director, District Employment Exchange, Pudur, Madurai. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent not to give effect to the proceedings of the fourth respondent in Ka.No.X2/13575/2010, dated 21.07.2010 as illegal and unconstitutional.
For Petitioner: Mr.N.Sundareshan
for M/s.Sun Associates
For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.S.Dhayalan Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the third respondent not to give effect to the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 21.07.2010.
1/3
W.P.(MD)No.10038 of 2010
2.Pursuant to the said order dated 21.07.2010, it reveals that the action taken report is called for by the Assistant Director, District Employment Exchange. Such a communication would not provide any cause for the petitioner to file a writ petition. Now, 10 years have elapsed. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a selected persons were appointed and working for the past more than 10 years and promotions were also granted.
3.This being the factum, the relief, as sought for by the petitioner, cannot be considered. If at all any other grievances exist to the petitioner, it is left open to him to adjudicate the same in the manner known to law. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Assistant Registrar (CS-I)
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
rmi
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.
To
2/3
W.P.(MD)No.10038 of 2010
4.The Assistant Director, District Employment Exchange, Pudur, Madurai.
+1 CC to SGP ( SR-22541[F] dated 23/11/2020 )
W.P.(MD)No.10038 of 2010
20.11.2020
VR(CO) NR (03/12/2020) 3P : 6C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking to quash appointment proceedings can be considered after a lapse of 10 years since the impugned action.
Whether the delay and subsequent appointments render the petitioner's claim academic.
P.Kangaraj
The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai
The Assistant Director-Town Panchayath Collectorate, Madurai
The Executive Officer, Palamedu Town Panchayath, Alanganallur, Madurai District
The Assistant Director, District Employment Exchange, Pudur, Madurai
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
