A retired employee challenged the promotion prospectus and method. The Court held that since the challenge served no present purpose and the appellant did not press the appeal, the writ appeal was dismissed.
The Writ Appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
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.
W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.04.2024
CORAM
JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE and JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
W.A.(MD).No.1413 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014
R.Murugan
.. Appellant
Vs.
4.M.V.S.Rao (16866)
_________Page 1 of 8
W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2014
5.S.Ganesh (20336)
11.K.S.Prasanna (23802)
12.C.K.Sasimangalam (25284)
14.Chandrasekaran S.K.(25584)
15.A.K.Madan (26104)
16.R.Manivannan (26174)
17.S.K.Bansal (27221)
18.K.K.Garg(27317)
19.S.Suresh (27728)
20.K.V.R.S.A.Raju (27884)
21.R.Shashikala (29370)
22.K.Balasubramanian (31079)
23.K.Ganesh Kamath (32180)
24.V.Sundaram (33607)
26.R.Girees Kumar (36052)
27.D.Selvaraj (36125)
_________Page 2 of 8
28.Subramanian.S (39359) 29.G.V.Prabhu (40153) 30.N.Balan (40569) 31.P.R.Yeshodhar (41795) 32.V.Jayaraman (44228) 33.V.Ramachandra (45111) 34.K.H.Patnaik (45941) 35.D.Madhavaraj (46575) 36.N.Lakshinarayan (46851) 37.Thiru.Vettai Duraipandi (46961) 38.K.Suseela ((46974) 39.K.Palanivelu (47322) 40.A.Eswaramurthy (47334) 41.V.R.Pattabi Ramiah (47465) 42.R.Chandar (47638) 43.B.Krishna Reddy (47870) 44.Kumsi Babu (48970) 45.P.Jayawanth Rao (49074) 46.Y.P.Mahajan (50968) 47.Sudhakar Ahuja (56376) 48.R.Baswadia (56425) 49.S.J.Gaware (56456) 50.Gopla Naik (56580)
W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2014
_________Page 3 of 8
51.Bismay Samal (57280) 52.P.C.Damodaran (58766) 53.M.K.Ravikrishnan (59664) 54.S.Santhosh Kumar (59668) 55.Shreenath H.Joshi (59688) 56.Subodh Kumar (63575) 57.S.Kanimozhi (63580) 58.Shreekant M.Shandiwad (63721) 59.CAPT.V.Nautiyal (56691) 60.S.Sreekumar (59383) 61.Ravikumar (60728) 62.Ravindra Kumar (60729) 63.T.G.Boraiah (61331) 64.Pranay Ranjan Deo (61602) 65.Udhaya Ravi.N (61616) 66.Raminder Pal Singh (71602) 67.S.K.Majumdar (71617) 68.Deepak Kumar Singh (71886) 69.Harsh Bajaj (72976)
W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2014
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.09.2014 passed in W.P.(MD) No.7496 of 2009.
_________Page 4 of 8
W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2014
For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior counsel for M/s. APN Law Associates For R1 to R3 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan for M/s. Veera Associates
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SESHASAYEE. J.)
“It is a matter where the appeal now survives for considering the limited question of whether the appellant would be eligible for notional promotion inasmuch as he has retired. He challenges the prospectus for providing promotion as well as the method by which the private respondents have granted promotion. In all, he had arrayed totally 66 private respondents who are all arrayed as respondents 4 to 69.
Page 5 of 8
W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2014
vacancies which are filled up through respondents 56 to 68. However, for not taking steps to them, the appeal itself stand dismissed against respondents 56 to 68.
(N.S.S., J.) (P.V.M., J.) 29.04.2024
_________Page 6 of 8
W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2014
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes
akv
To
N. SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI, J.
akv
_________Page 7 of 8
W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2014
W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2014
29.04.2024
_________Page 8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal filed challenging promotion prospects and eligibility for a retired employee must be pressed to proceed.
R. Murugan
The Chairman and Managing Director, Canara Bank
N. SESHASAYEE
P. VADAMALAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
