Dismissed

Ms.a.Arunthathi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Oct 2021WP/22938/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed a writ petition seeking promotion for a temple assistant by quashing an earlier order directing authorities to consider the seniority of another eligible candidate. The court held the petitioner lacked standing to seek appointment via mandamus while another's claim remains pending consideration.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing promotion is dismissed with no costs being awarded to the petitioner.

Ms.a.Arunthathi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P. No.22938 of 2014

¶6

A.Arunthathi ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs

¶8

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶9

 Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
 Department of Tamil Development,

¶10

 Culture and Religious Department,

¶11

 Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2. The Commissioner,

¶13

 Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,

¶14

 (Administration) Department,

¶15

 Nungambakkam High Road,

¶16

 Chennai-600 034.

¶17

3. The Chairman,

¶18

 Board of Trustees,

¶19

 Incorporated and unincorporated Temples,
 Suchindrum, Kanyakumari District.

¶20

4. The Deputy Commissioner and Executive Officer, Kanyakumari District Temples, Head Office,

¶21

 Suchindrum, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner
for promotion to the post of Assistant with effect from
16.06.2005 with all service benefits including notational
promotion, fixation of scale of pay, increment, arrears etc., by
including library Assistants' post as feeder post with
retrospective effect i.e. from the date of G.O.Ms.No.189 dated

¶23

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

¶24

28.06.2010 of Tamil Development, Religious Endowments and
Information Department.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Subramanian, Senior Counsel
 for Mr.M.A.Abdul Wahab

¶26

For Respondents: Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh (for R1 & R2)

¶27

 Government Advocate
 : Mr.H.Elango (for R4)
 : No Appearance (for R3)

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Heard Mr.K.V.Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.A.Abdul Wahab, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, learned Government Advocate for R1 and
R2.

¶30

2.The following order was passed by me on 05.10.2021:
'There is no appearance for the petitioner.
On 23.09.2021, I had recorded the request of the
petitioner for accommodation and that apart, noted
at paragraph 2 as follows:

¶31

2.........learned Government Advocate has
circulated written instructionsdated
23.09.2021, to the effect that this petitioner had
filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of
this Court in W.P.(MD) No.11414 of 2005 that
travelled in WA. (MD). No.562 of 2011, also on the
question of fixation of seniority. Let a
copy of the order in W.P.(MD) No.11414 of 2005 and
W.A. (MD). No.562 of 2011 be placed on record.
........

¶32

2. Today, Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, learned
Government Advocate for R1 and R2 circulates a
decision of the Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No.562
of 2011 , wherein the appellant is the petitioner
in the present Writ Petition. She had challenged
an order passed in W.P.(MD) No.11414 of 2005 dated
22.03.2011, at the instance of one V.N.Sivakumar,
wherein, the State and the officials of the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR
& CE) as well as the present petitioners had been

¶33

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

¶34

arrayed as respondents 1 to 4 and R5 respectively
in that Writ Petition.

¶35

3. The aforesaid Writ Petition had come to
be allowed quashing the appointment of
A.Arunthathi, appellant therein and petitioner
herein, as Assistant in the Suchindram Temple in
Kanyakumari District, as against which, she had
filed a Writ appeal. The Writ Appeal had been
dismissed on 18.06.2013 confirming the order of the
learned single Judge quashing the order of the
Commissioner, HR & CE Department approving the
appointment of Arunthathi as Assistant from the
post of Library Assistant. The Commissioner, HR &
CE had stated in counter that approval of her
appointment had also been under review and had been
thereafter cancelled and thus the name of
V.N.Sivakumar was to be considered in accordance
with the Service Rules in force.

¶36

4. The present Writ Petition seeks a
mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant
with effect from 16.06.2005 with all consequential
benefits.

¶37

5. With the allowing of W.P.(MD) No.11414
of 2005 on 22.03.2011, the claim of V.N.Sivakumar
has been accepted and that of the petitioner
rejected. Thus it was wholly inappropriate for the
petitioner to have filed the present Writ Petition
before this Court seeking a mandamus for her
appointment.

¶38

6. The request of the petitioner is
misplaced and proceeds on the understanding that
the directions at paragraph 19 of the order in Writ
Appeal address the petitioner herein, for
consideration of her claim for promotion to the
post of Assistant, on merits and in accordance with
law within a period of eight weeks. This is
factually incorrect.

¶39

7. Paragraphs 17 to 19 of the order in Writ
Appeal are extracted below:

¶40

'17. in the light of the above, the
Writ Court quashing the impugnedorder
dated17.10.2005ofthethird

¶41

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

¶42

respondent/Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.
Department, approving the promotion of the
appellant as Assistant from the post of
Library Assistant made by the 5th
respondent/Executive Officer basedonthe
resolution of the Board of Trustees/4th respondent,
is required to be upheld.

¶43

18. Now that the promotion of the
appellant has been quashed by the Writ Court
and further, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. in
his counter has also stated that approval to her
said promotion has been reviewed and that has
been cancelled, the claimofthefirst
respondent for promotion is required to be

¶44

considered in accordance with the service

¶45

rules in force.

¶46

19. In the result, this Writ
Appeal fails and it is dismissed. The order of
the Writ Court, dated 22.3.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)
No.11414 of 2005 is upheld. The appointing
authority and the approving authority shall
consider the claim of the first respondent/writ
petitioner for promotion as Assistant on

¶47

merits and in accordance with the service
rules in force, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this
judgment. '

¶48

8. Thus and unambiguously, in Writ Appeal,
(i) the order of the Writ Court quashing order
dated 17.10.2005 passed by the Commissioner, HR &
CE has been confirmed. (ii) the approval granted
to the promotion of A.Arunthathi was reviewed and
thereafter cancelled by the Commissioner, HR & CE,
(iii) the appointing and approving authority have
been directed to consider the claim of
V.N.Sivakumar, who was the Writ Petitioner in W.P.
(MD) No.11414 of 2005 for promotion as Assistant on
merits and in accordance with applicable Service
Rules within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of that order.

¶49

9. Thus for the petitioner to have assumed
that such a direction was issued in her case is
factually incorrect and the mandamus as sought for

¶50

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

¶51

cannot be granted and this Writ Petition is liable
to be dismissed.

¶52

10. At this juncture, when the Writ
Petition was to be dismissed, a representing
counsel states that the counsel on record is held
up otherwise and is unable to appear.

¶53

11. At this request, list on 06.10.2021 as
item No.1.'

¶54

3.Today Mr.Subramanian would concur with the factual and
legal position as captured in the above order specifically,
paragraph-8 thereof.

¶55

4.He would however submit that the prayer of the
petitioner for inclusion of the petitioner's name for promotion
may be considered. This cannot be for the reason that admittedly
the 2010 amendment does not mention the category to which the
petitioner belonged, as being one of the feeder categories for
promotion. Issuing a mandamus as sought for, would tantamount to
adding to the amendment itself, which is impermissible.

¶56

5.This writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶57

Assistant Registrar

¶58

// True Copy //

¶59

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶60

vs/kbs

¶61

To

¶62

1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Tamil Development, Culture and Religious Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶63

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

¶64

2. The Commissioner,

¶65

 Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
 (Administration) Department,
 Nungambakkam High Road,
 Chennai-600 034.

¶66

3. The Chairman,

¶67

 Board of Trustees,
 Incorporated and unincorporated Temples,
 Suchindrum, Kanyakumari District.

¶68

4. The Deputy Commissioner and Executive Officer, Kanyakumari District Temples, Head Office, Suchindrum, Kanyakumari District.

¶69

+1CC to The Government Pleader, SR.No. 52791

¶70

+1CC to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 53424

¶71

W.P. No.22938 of 2014

¶72

SV(CO)
B.VC (25/10/2021)

¶73

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

Ms.a.Arunthathi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms.a.Arunthathi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Anbarasu, Vs State of Tamilnadu

P.Freddy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P. Samyanathan Vs the District Collector

Dr.M.Lakshminarayanan Vs the Managing Director

K.Muthammal Vs The Director/Commissioner

Dr.K. Gunavathi Vs Psg College of Technology