Dismissed

The Director Cum Mission Director v. S Jeyam

Madras HC13 Dec 2024WA(MD)/2537/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ appeal where appellants challenged an order appointing a petitioner to a post. The court held that the appellants were estopped from raising new grounds after having made a submission to the writ court that vacancy would be filled from original applicants.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed with no costs attached.

The Director Cum Mission Director Vs S Jeyam — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WA(MD). No.2537 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 13/12/2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

WA(MD). No.2537 of 2024

¶7

and CMP(MD) No.17890 of 2024

¶8

The Director Cum Mission Director Integrated Child Development Scheme, No.1 Pammal Nallathambi Street, Tharamani, Chennai.

¶9

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District

¶10

The District Project/Programme Officer, Child Development Schemes, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶11

The Integrated Child Development Officer, R.S.Mangalam Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District. ... Appellants

¶12

¶13

S Jeyam ... Respondent

¶14

PRAYER :- Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

WA(MD). No.2537 of 2024

¶18

against the order dated 05.09.2023 in WP(MD). No. 639 /2019.

¶19

For Appellants : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.S.Malaikani

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH, J.)

¶22

Challenging is made to the order of the writ Court dated 05.09.2023 in WP(MD) No.639/2019.

¶23

The only ground on which the writ appeal has been filed is that

¶24

the original appointee, namely, Amaravathi was later found to be unfit and therefore removed from service and since the reserved list of the candidates had lapsed, after expiry of six months and the writ petitioner had also crossed the age limit, she cannot be appointed to the said post and therefore, the order in the writ petition requires intervention.

¶25

We are unable to accept such a submission for the simple reason

¶26

that it was based on the appellants/Government Advocate's own submission before the writ Court that the vacancy that existed as on the 2/5

¶27

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

¶28

WA(MD). No.2537 of 2024

¶29

date would be filled up from among the persons including the writ petitioner, who originally applied for the said post, on which submission, the writ petition came to be allowed with a direction to the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioner and finalise the selection. Having given such an undertaking before the writ Court, the appellants are now estopped from challenging the said order on a different ground. Thus, there are no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶30

[M.S.R.,J] [A.D.M.C.,J] 13.12.2024

¶31

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR

¶32

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

¶33

3/5

¶34

WA(MD). No.2537 of 2024

¶35

¶36

The Director Cum Mission Director Integrated Child Development Scheme, No.1 Pammal Nallathambi Street, Tharamani, Chennai.

¶37

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District

¶38

The District Project/Programme Officer, Child Development Schemes, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶39

The Integrated Child Development Officer, R.S.Mangalam Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District.

¶40

4/5

¶41

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

¶42

WA(MD). No.2537 of 2024

¶43

M.S.RAMESH,J AND A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶44

¶45

JUDGMENT IN WA(MD) No.2537 of 2024

¶46

Date : 13/12/2024

¶47

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

¶48

5/5

The Director Cum Mission Director v. S Jeyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director Cum Mission Director v. S Jeyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Balamurugan Vs The Principal District Judge

T.Balakrishnan Vs The District Collector

The Principal Secretary to Government Vs Kezhson. I

M.Muniyappan, Vs Mrs.Krishnaveni, Tahsildar

E. Haroon Natharsha Vs Vishnu

M/s. Maxicon Export Vs The Authorized Officer