I.Balamurugan v. the Chairman
Case brief
What is this about?
This common order denies bail to petitioners challenging the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board's decision not to permit them to participate in physical efficiency tests. However, it is admitted that both petitioners were subsequently permitted and qualified for the tests, making the petitions infructuous.
What did the court decide?
The writ petitions were closed as they had become infructuous since the petitioners were permitted to take the test and had qualified.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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).Nos.1287 & 1290 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.02.2020 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD)Nos.1287 and 1290 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.1038 and 1041 of 2020
W.P.(MD).No.1287 of 2020: I. Balamurugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Officer Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.
2.The Chairman,
Recruitment Sub-Committee, Madurai Centre & Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai. ... Respondents
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be allowed to participate in the other physical efficiency test.
Whether the prayer for mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the test is maintainable.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Balamurugan
- respondent
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
- respondent
Chairman, Recruitment Sub-Committee, Madurai Centre & Deputy Inspector General of Police
- petitioner
R.Sivakarthick
- respondent
Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court