Disposed

V.Elayaraja v. The Commissioner

Madras HC15 Sept 2023WP/24283/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged appointment orders seeking appointment in place of a third respondent with benefits. Petitioner withdrew main issues citing granted seniority. Court disposed of writ without adjudication, directing administrative examination of petitioner's credentials via representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit representations for credential examination; writ disposed of; connected petitions closed.

V.Elayaraja Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP.No.24283/2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 15.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

WP.No.24283/2016 & WMP.Nos.20757 & 20758/2016

V.Elayaraja

... Petitioner

Versus

1.The Commissioner Vellore Corporation Vellore, Vellore District.

¶11

2.The Commissioner for Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶12

3.Thiru Rajesh Kumar ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 27.01.2016 and 19.02.2016 issued in Na.Ka.No.15482/2015/111 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner in the place of the 3rd respondent with all attendant service and monetary benefits.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

WP.No.24283/2016

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.P.I.Thirumurthy For R1 : Mr.S.Silambanan Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.P.Shanthi Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.S.Ravikumar, Spl.GP For R3 : Adithya Varadarajan

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(1) The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking records relating to the orders of the 1st respondent, Commissioner, Vellore Corporation dated 27.01.2016 and 19.02.2016 respectively and to quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner in the place of 3rd respondent and to grant all attendant and monetary benefits.

¶20

(2) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner ; learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Corporation and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

¶21

(3) Even before the arguments could commence, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had been granted seniority and

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

WP.No.24283/2016

¶25

therefore, the issues raised in the writ petition are not pressed for adjudication by this Court.

¶26

(4) Let the matter rest at that. The learned Additional Advocate General also affirms the fact that the petitioner had been subsequently promoted. No further orders are required.

¶27

(5) The learned counsel for the petitioner however placed a request that the seniority of the petitioner should be examined by this Court. However, the learned Advocate Additional General stated that, that would be beyond the scope of the writ petition.

¶28

(6) The petitioner may give necessary representations and if representations are given, the concerned official may issue notice to the petitioner and also to the 3rd respondent and examine their credentials and pass appropriate orders.

¶29

(7) The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶30

15.09.2023

¶31

AP Internet : Yes

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

WP.No.24283/2016

¶35

¶36

1.The Commissioner Vellore Corporation Vellore, Vellore District.

¶37

2.The Commissioner for Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

WP.No.24283/2016

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,

WP.No.24283/2016

15.09.2023

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

¶46

V.Elayaraja v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Elayaraja v. The Commissioner

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

Antony Muthu Nadar (Died) 1. a.Asirvatham Vs Devagana Nadar

S.Magesh Kumar Vs The Zonal Manager cum

S.Abirami Vs The Zonal Manager cum

B.Nagarajan, Vs The Inspector General of

S.Kavitha Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

B.Gayathri Vs The Director of Treasuries