This appeal concerned the proper parties in a writ petition over a failed recruitment. The court observed that other petitioners filed separate petitions and concluded that the respondent was the sole proper party who had since been employed. The writ appeal was allowed.
The writ appeal is allowed. Registry to issue order arraying respondent as sole respondent.
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.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.161 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD)No.820 of 2016
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, represented by the Registrar, Abhishekapatti, Tirunelveli – 627 012. ...Appellant
-Vs.-
Lakshmi ...Respondent
(cause title amended vide order of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.161 of 2016 dated 01.09.2023)
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 30.10.2015 made in W.P.(MD)No.13229 of 2014 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel for Mr.Mohamed Athiff For Respondent : Ms.D.Geetha
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The present Writ Appeal has been filed by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University.
2.A preliminary objection is raised by learned Counsel for the respondent, who points to the fact that there are ten individuals arrayed as respondents. The appellant has proceeded on the basis that W.P(MD)No.13229 of 2014 has been filed arraying ten petitioners. However, that is not the case.
3.It is brought to our notice that a petition under Section 2B was filed originally by the Writ Petitioners, but the request for filing a single Writ Petition was rejected by the Court on 06.08.2014 and the petitioners directed to file separate Writ Petitions. Hence, the Writ Petitioners arrayed as P2 to P10 in W.P.(MD)No.13229 of 2014 filed separate Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.19043 to 19052 of 2014.
4.Admittedly, an error has crept in to the format of certified copy of order dated 30.10.2015 insofar as all ten original Writ Petitioners. Originally, petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.13229 of 2014 have been arrayed and their separate Writ Petitions shown immediately thereafter.
5.The present Writ Appeal relating to W.P.(MD)No.13229 of 2014 thus, concerns only R1, i.e., P1 in the original array, i.e., Lakshmi, alone. The said individual has participated in a subsequent round of recruitment successfully and has been employed by the University. She, hence, does not pursue the prayer in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.13229 of 2014.
6.In such circumstances, the present Writ Appeal qua Lakshmi has to be allowed and we do so. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Registry will issue this order arraying Lakshmi as sole respondent, the array of R2 to R10 being misconceived.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,] NCC :Yes/No 01.09.2023 Index :Yes/No cmr
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
cmr
W.A.(MD)No.161 of 2016
01.09.2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the earlier writ petition which several candidates proposed to file was restricted to single Writ Petition by this Court
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
Lakshmi
DR Anita Sumanth
R Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
