Dismissed

S.Nagendra, v. the Special Commissioner and

Madras HC6 Oct 2020WP(MD)/3128/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by S.Nagendra seeking promotion to the post of Tahsildar for 2009. The Court held that since the petitioner was found ineligible for the earlier promotion to deputy Tahsildar in 2006, the current petition lacked merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Tahsildar was dismissed with no costs.

S.Nagendra, Vs the Special Commissioner and — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.3128 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.10.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.3128 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶6

S.Nagendra ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶9

2.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶10

3.Mrs.C.Bhavanijeeja (Tahsildar Cadre), Taluk Supply Officer, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to include the petitioner's name in the panel for promotion to the post of Tahsildar for the year 2009 issued by the 2^nd respondent in A6/22282/2009, dated 9.11.2009 by placing the petitioner above than Serial No.16 ie., 3^rd respondent and consequently promote the petitioner as Tahsildar with effect from the date on which her juniors were promoted with all monetary and service benefits within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For R1 and R2 : Mr.C.M.Marichelliah Prabhu Addl.Govt.Pleader For R3 : No Appearance

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to include the petitioner's name in the panel for promotion to the post of Tahsildar for the year 2009 issued by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.3128 of 2011

¶17

2^nd respondent in A6/22282/2009, dated 9.11.2009.

¶18

In view of the fact that the earlier writ petition (W.P.(MD) No.3128 of 2011) was dismissed for inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, of the year 2006, the next promotion is also to be considered in accordance with the Rules in force.

¶19

In view of the fact that the petitioner was found not eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006, he is not entitled for promotion to the post of Tahsildar in the year 2009. Thus, the subsequent writ petition filed seeking a direction to grant promotion to the post of Tahsildar is not meritorious. This apart, only if the writ petitioner was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006, he would be eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2009.

¶20

Under these circumstances, the present writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Tahsildar also deserves no merits consideration and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

MPK

¶26

¶27

1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶28

Chennai – 600 005.

¶29

2.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District,Nagercoil.

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.3128 of 2011 06.10.2020

¶31

MR(CO)

¶32

AP(15/10/2020) 2P 3C

¶33

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

¶34

S.Nagendra, v. the Special Commissioner and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Nagendra, v. the Special Commissioner and

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

Pandyan Grama Bank Employees- Vs Pandyan Grama Bank, Rep. by-

Pandyan Grama Bank Vs Pandyan Grama Bank

P.Kasikani, Vs the Accountant General of

S.Nagendra Vs the Special Commissioner and

R. Vinodh Kumar Vs the Chancellor

M.Mangalam, Vs the Director of Elementary-