S.Ponna, Vs The Director of Town Panchayat

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka. No.1170 / 2012 /B dated 29.05.2012 and consequential

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 17183 of 2017

¶19

order of the Third respondent in Na.Ka.No.188 /2012/ A2, dated 31.05.2012, quash the same in as much as appointing the Fourth Respondent Thiru.S.Elangovan as Record clerk in the Thammampatti Section Grade Town Panchayat and also to promote the Writ petitioner S. Ponna as Record clerk from 31.05.2012, the date on which the Fourth Respondent was appointed as Record Clerk with all consequential monetary benefits.

¶20

For Petitioner M/s.P.P.Shanmugasundaram For Respondents Mr.V.Veluchamy, AGP for R1 to R3 R4-NA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka. No.1170 / 2012 /B dated 29.05.2012 and consequential order of the Third respondent in Na.Ka.No.188 /2012/ A2, dated 31.05.2012 and to promote the Writ petitioner S. Ponna as Record clerk from 31.05.2012, the date on which the Fourth Respondent was appointed as Record Clerk with

¶23

all consequential monetary benefits.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was appointed as

¶25

Office Assistant in Thammampatti Town Panchayat, sought promotion to the

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 17183 of 2017

¶28

vacant Record Clerk Post as per G.O.(Ms).No.205/1989. Instead, the post was

¶29

filled by compassionate appointment of Thiru. S.Elangovan, son of a deceased Electrician from another Town Panchayat. Petitioner made representations to the third respondent, however he did not receive any response. Aggrieved by the

¶30

same, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the

¶32

proceedings Na.Ka.No.379/2017, dated 12.03.2020, and submitted that the petitioner has been appointed as a Junior Assistant. Therefore the cause in the

¶33

present Writ Petition does not survive, as the petitioner is challenging the appointment of the fourth respondent, Thiru. S.Elangovan as Record Clerk,

¶34

which is a lower post compared to Junior Assistant.

¶35

The Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to give a representation

¶36

to the respondents to consider his seniority above the fourth respondent. Upon

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 17183 of 2017

¶39

receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the respondent shall consider

¶40

the same and dispose of it on merit and in accordance with law, within a period

¶41

of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner. It is needless to say that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the disposal of the representation regarding his seniority, he can approach this Court by filing Writ

¶42

Petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

K.SURENDER, J. 19-11-2025

¶44

Jai

¶45

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

¶46

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶47

To