Disposed¶28

J.Victor Fernandez v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.

Madras HC2 Sept 2025WP/4811/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous closure of writ petition; land-loser priority certificate naming petitioner and elder brother; no-objection certificate; exclusion from oral test; Technical Assistant (Electrical); Notification No. 1/2016 dated 28.02.2016; TANGEDCO / Chief Engineer (Personnel); Anna University; Diploma Holders Electrical/Electrical and Electronic Engineering quota; B.C. and O.C. Open land-loser categories; Article 226 writ of declaration; counsel's endorsement that cause does not survive; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; Madras High Court 2025; T. Vinod Kumar J.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition closed as infructuous with 'No costs', and the connected miscellaneous petitions WMP.Nos.5465 & 5467 of 2019 also closed. ¶28

J.Victor Fernandez Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition closed as infructuous with 'No costs', and the connected miscellaneous petitions WMP.Nos.5465 & 5467 of 2019 also closed.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in not permitting the petitioner to take the oral test for the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) under Notification No. 1/2016 dated 28.02.2016 — on the ground that the land-loser priority certificate issued to his father contained the names of both the petitioner and his elder brother, notwithstanding the brother's no-objection certificate — was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, warranting a direction to call the petitioner for a separate interview and consider him for appointment under B.C. Open land-loser and/or O.C. Open land-loser categories.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner having submitted that the cause in the writ petition did not survive for consideration and made an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle, this Court recorded the submission and closed the writ petition as infructuous, awarding no costs, and also closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (T. Vinod Kumar, J.), order dated 02-09-2025 — WP No. 4811 of 2019 & WMP.Nos.5465 & 5467 of 2019 (J. Victor Fernandez v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. and others): CLOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. The writ petition, filed under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Declaration, had challenged the respondents' refusal to permit the petitioner to appear for the oral test for the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) notified under Notification No. 1/2016 dated 28.02.2016, on the ground that the land-loser priority certificate issued to his father named both the petitioner and his elder brother despite the brother's no-objection certificate, and had sought a separate interview and consideration under B.C./O.C. Open land-loser categories. At hearing, learned counsel submitted that the cause did not survive and made an endorsing note in the court bundle; the Court recorded the submission, closed the writ petition as infructuous with 'No costs', and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions. No question of law was adjudicated; no ratio emerges and the order carries no precedential weight beyond the bare fact of infructuous closure.

¶1

WP No. 4811 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WP No. 4811 of 2019 & WMP.Nos.5465 & 5467 of 2019

¶7

J.Victor Fernandez S/o. S. James Kaspar Raj, 125, Near Antony Church, Nallamanayakkanpatti Post, Thottanoothu, Dindigul - 624003 Dindigul

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2Chennai

¶11

2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2

¶12

3.Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Centre for University - Industry, Collaboration,

¶13

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

WP No. 4811 of 2019

Guindy, Chennai - 32

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Declaration declaring that the action of the respondents in not permitting and allowing the petitioner for oral test for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) as per the Notification No. 1/ 2016 dated 28.02.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent, on the ground that the land loser priority certificate issued to his father contains his name and the name of his elder brother and on the ground that it should contain only the petitioner name and the action of the respondents in not accepting the priority certificate which he has produce along with the no objection certificate given by his brother for allowing him for oral test as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to call the petitioner for interview separately by notifying date time and venue for oral test and to consider him for appointment to the post of Technical assistant (Electrical) under B.C.Open Land loser category and/or O.C.Open land loser category and in the quota of vacancies allotted for the Diploma Holders with Electrical Engineering and Electrical and Electronic Engineering , based on the marks scored by him in the written examination and the marks which may be awarded to him in the oral test ad forbear the respondent from making appointment to the above post under the above two categories, without either keeping one post eah under each category vacant or without calling him for oral test and without considering his name along with other candidates for whom the oral test was already conducted, Award costs.

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Vijay for Mr.R.Krishnaswamy For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Rajkumar, Standing counsel for R1 and R2 Mr.U.Bharanidharan, SGP for R3

¶20

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

¶21

WP No. 4811 of 2019

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Mr.G.Vijay, learned counsel representing Mr.R.Krishnaswamy, learned

¶24

counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not