Dismissed

K.Balachandran v. The Director of Town

Madras HC16 Dec 2024WP/25308/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging town panchayat sweeper appointments made in 2007. The court held the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and had no locus standi to challenge appointments made eight years earlier, dismissed the petition without costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed, no costs, miscellaneous petition closed.

K.Balachandran Vs The Director of Town — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.25308 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶6

W.P.No.25308 of 2015

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶9

1 K.Balachandran

¶10

PETITIONER

¶11

¶12

1 The Director Of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam Buildings, Chennai-600 104.

¶13

2 The District Collector Salem District, Salem.

¶14

3 The Assistant Director Of Town Panchayats, Salem Zone, Collectorate Salem.

¶15

4 M.Panjalai

¶16

Ex.Chairman And Ex.President Of The Appointment Committee, Panamarathupatti I Grade Town Panchayat, Panamarathupatti, Salem District-636 204.

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.25308 of 2015

¶20

5 P.Radhakrishnan

¶21

Ex.Member Of The Appointment Committee Panamarathupatti I Grade Town Panchayat Panamarathupatti, Salem District-636 204.

¶22

6 P.K.Madhaiyan,

¶23

Ex.Executive Officer Of Panamarathupatti I

¶24

Grade Town Panchayat, Presently: Executive

¶25

Officer (under suspension) Jalakandapuram Town

¶26

Panchayat, Jalakandapuram, Salem District.

¶27

7 The Executive Officer

¶28

Panamarathupatti I Grade Town Panchayat,

¶29

Panamarathupatti, Salem District-636 204.

¶30

8 K.Manikandan

¶31

9 D.Gopi ... RESPONDENTS

¶32

PRAYER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records relating to the orders of the 6th respondent dated 14.06.2007 in Na.Ka. 55/07 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the respondents 8 and 9 consequently direct the 7^th respondent to call for a fresh list of eligible candidates from the District Employment Office, Salem District, and ti fill up one post of Sweepers by direct recruitment and one post of Sweeper on compassionate grounds.

¶33

Page 2 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.25308 of 2015

¶36

For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondent ... Mr.M.S.Premkumar Nos.1,2,3,& 7 For Respondent No.5 ... Ms.T.Dharani For Respondent No.6. ... Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan

¶37

ORDER

¶38

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the orders of the 6^th respondent dated 14.06.2007 in Na.Ka. 55/07 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the respondents 8 and 9 consequently, direct the 7^th respondent to call for a fresh list of eligible candidates from the District Employment Office, Salem District, and to fill up one post of Sweepers by direct recruitment and one post of Sweeper on compassionate grounds.

¶39

2.The petitioner herein is not the one aspiring for appointment to the

¶40

posts in question and as such, he is not an aggrieved person by virtue of the appointment orders issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 8 & 9 and the present writ petition has been filed after a lapse of eight years since the date

¶41

Page 3 of 5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.25308 of 2015

¶44

of appointment of the respondent Nos.8 & 9. The writ petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondent Nos.8 & 9 and he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved. Hence, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

Index : Yes/No 16.12.2024 Internet : Yes/No sms To

¶46

1 The Director Of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam Buildings, Chennai-600 104.

¶47

2 The District Collector Salem District, Salem.

¶48

3 The Assistant Director Of Town Panchayats, Salem Zone, Collectorate Salem.

¶49

4 The Executive Officer Panamarathupatti I Grade Town Panchayat, Panamarathupatti, Salem District-636 204.

¶50

5 The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶51

Page 4 of 5

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.25308 of 2015

¶54

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶55

sms

¶56

W.P.No.25308 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶57

16.12.2024

¶58

Page 5 of 5

¶59

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

K.Balachandran v. The Director of Town

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Balachandran v. The Director of Town

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

A.Ramalingam, Vs The Govt of Tamil Nadu

P.Kaliraj, Vs the Superintendent

J.Jayapaul Mohan Vs The Principal Secretary to

M.Gulam Ahmed Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

J.Jayapaul Mohan Vs The Principal Secretary to

M.Manjula, Vs Pondicherry Market Committee