Dismissed

P.Mohandoss v. B.Karthikeyan and 2 others

Madras HC20 Jul 2023CONT P/412/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition concerning wilful disobedience of the High Court in W.P.No.17929 of 2019 regarding the recruitment of Assistant Professors of Law, the court directed the respondents to issue necessary posting orders to the petitioner as a similarly placed candidate.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to issue necessary posting orders to the petitioner and intimate the date of joining within four weeks of receipt of this order.

P.Mohandoss Vs B.Karthikeyan and 2 others — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Cont.P.No.412 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 20.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

Contempt Petition No.412 of 2023

P.Mohandoss

... Petitioner

.Vs.

1.B.Karthikeyan

The Principal Secretary, Law Department Secretariat St.George Fort Chennai-600 009

¶12

2.C.Chokkalingam

¶13

The Director of Legal Studies Directorate of Legal Studies Purasaiwakkam High Road Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

¶14

3.G.Latha The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) 4^th floor, EVK Sampath Maligai DPI Compound, College Road Chennai-6 ... Respondents

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Page 1/8

¶17

Cont.P.No.412 of 2023

¶18

Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents and punish them for the wilful disobedience of the order of the High Court in W.P.No.17929 of 2019, dated 19.08.2021, under Contempt of Courts Act.

¶19

For respondents : Mr.Neelakandan, Addl Advocate General Asst. by Mr.P.Gurunathan, AGP.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

J.NISHA BANU, J.

¶22

The present Contempt Petition is filed praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for the wilful disobedience of the order of the High Court in W.P.No.17929 of 2019, dated 19.08.2021, under Contempt of Courts Act.

¶23

The petitioner filed W.P.No.17929 of 2019 challenging the

¶24

Provisional Selection List of candidates in Environmental Law for the recruitment of Assistant Professor of Law 2017-2018 dated 14.05.2019

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Page 2/8

¶27

Cont.P.No.412 of 2023

¶28

of the 3^rd respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 3^rd respondent to publish result of the petitioner for recruitment of Assistant Professor of Law 2017-2018.

¶29

This court on 19.08.2021 passed a common order in W.P.No.19534/2019 etc batch along with Rev.Appl.No.195/2019 in W.A.No.533 of 2018, directing the State Authorities to revisit the entire eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and conform to the minimum standards fixed by the BCI and expedite the process of recruitment.

¶30

Since the order of this court has not been complied with, petitioner filed representations. The petitioner also averred that an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as against the common order of the Division Bench of this court dated 19.08.2021. The same was dismissed on 20.09.2021 holding that there is no bar to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Page 3/8

¶33

Cont.P.No.412 of 2023

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the knowledge

¶35

of this court the Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.389 Law (LS) Department dated 04.07.2023, whereby, in paragraph 5 of the G.O., it is mentioned that in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Madras, dated 07.06.2023, in Contempt Petition No.2914 of 2022 and 434, 485 and 24 of 2023 in W.P.No.20198 of 2018, 20389 of 2018, 20390 of 2018 and 20391 of 2018 dated 19.08.2021 and based on the selection made by the Teachers Recruitment Board, the Government ordered for appointing the individuals as mentioned in the annexure to the order temporarily as Assistant Professors (Pre-Law) in the Government Law College in the subjects mentioned against their names on the conditions stipulated thereunder. Following the same, the Secretary to Government (Legal Affairs), issued direction to the Director of Legal Studies to issue necessary posting orders to the said Assistant Professors (Pre-Law).

¶36

It is a matter of record that the petitioner earlier filed W.P(MD).No.22124 of 2017 and the Madurai Bench of Madras High

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Page 4/8

¶39

Cont.P.No.412 of 2023

¶40

Court, by order dated 13.03.2019, recorded that the petitioner was entitled to additional 10 marks and that his total marks comes around to

¶41

186 in the TNSET certificate.

¶42

One of the writ petitioners in the batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.19534/2018 dated 19.08.2021 viz., V.Lekha also filed Contempt Petition No.1674 of 2021 and a Division Bench of court, by order dated 19.04.2022, pointed out that the successful writ petitioners before this court are considered first towards expediting the process of completion of recruitment initiated vide subject notification; on filling up of the vacancies with eligible candidates who already participated in the subject selection but the result of the selection withheld for the aforementioned reasons, the remaining vacancies can be filled up as expeditiously as possible by initiating fresh recruitment process.

¶43

This court again, in Cont.P.No.1674 of 2021, by order dated 03.01.2023, made it clear that there are other similarly placed persons

¶44

who also not be denied of the benefits of the order dated 19.04.2022.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

Page 5/8

¶47

Cont.P.No.412 of 2023

¶48

Thereafter, by order dated 09.01.2023, this court recorded the compliance

¶49

of the direction of this court issued in the said Contempt Petition by order dated 19.04.2022.

¶50

On going through the above facts, it is apparent that the petitioner is also similarly placed person who acquired similar qualification and participated in the selection process as that of selected candidates and who got appointed by the 3^rd respondent in pursuant to the common order dated 19.08.2021. Therefore, the benefit of order of this court dated 19.08.2021 in W.P.19534 of 2018 etc batch is to be extended to the petitioner herein.

¶51

Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the necessary appointment orders is being issued to the eligible persons as per Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.02, Law (:LS) Department dated 06.01.2023.

¶52

In the light of the above discussion, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents-

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

Page 6/8

¶55

Cont.P.No.412 of 2023

¶56

Director of Legal Studies and The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board are directed to comply with the directions issued by this court dated 19.08.2021 and also by taking note of the order passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 13.03.2019 in the case of petitioner. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents shall issue necessary posting orders to the petitioner and intimate the date of joining to the individual and TRB for verification of the eligibility certificates. The above said exercise shall be carried out by the respondents 2 and 3, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶57

The Contempt Petition is closed with the above observation.

¶58

(J.N.B, J.) (N.M., J.) 20.07.2023

¶59

nvsri

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

Page 7/8

¶62

Cont.P.No.412 of 2023

¶63

J. NISHA BANU, J. and N.MALA,J.

¶64

nvsri

¶65

¶66

The Principal Secretary, Law Department Secretariat St.George Fort Chennai-600 009

¶67

2.The Director of Legal Studies Directorate of Legal Studies Purasaiwakkam High Road Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

¶68

3.The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) 4^th floor, EVK Sampath Maligai DPI Compound, College Road Chennai-6

¶69

Cont.P.No.412 of 2023

¶70

20.07.2023

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶72

Page 8/8

P.Mohandoss v. B.Karthikeyan and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mohandoss v. B.Karthikeyan and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariadassou Philomene Dominique Vs E.Sathiyamurthy

Mrs.M.Indira Vs The Commissioner

Mrs.M.Indira Vs The Commissioner

K.Sasikumar Vs The State Human Rights

Kalaiselvi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Sivakumar Vs The commissioner