Disposed

Sundaram .K v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Sept 2025WP(MD)/23778/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought a mandamus to consider the petitioner's representation for appointment as Village Assistant in vacant posts. The Tahsildar had already passed final orders on the representation on 23.08.2023. The court disposed of the petition granting liberty to challenge that order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to challenge the third respondent's order dated 23.08.2023; no order as to costs.

Sundaram .K Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.23778 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P(MD).No.23778 of 2023

¶7

K.Sundaram ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram Revenue Divisional Office, Ramanathapuram.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.08.2023 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner for the post of Village Assistant in any one of the villages kept vacant

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.23778 of 2023

¶16

1.Kadambanendhal 2.Nilammalagiyamangalam at Thiruvadanai Taluk,

¶17

Ramanathapuram district.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dinesh

¶19

For Respondent : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus, seeking a direction to

¶22

the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 14.08.2023 and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the post

¶23

of Village Assistant in any one of the villages kept vacant.

¶24

2.Counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent on behalf of the respondents in this writ petition. In paragraph No.6 of the said counter affidavit, the third respondent has categorically stated that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 14.08.2023, the subject matter of the writ petition, the third respondent has also passed final orders on 23.08.2023. The third respondent has stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same,

¶25

the petitioner will have to challenge the said order, dated 23.08.2023.

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.23778 of 2023

¶29

3.The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that his representation, dated 14.08.2023 was not considered by the respondents. However as seen from the counter affidavit filed before this Court, the third respondent has considered the petitioner's representation dated 14.08.2023 and has passed a final order dated 23.08.2023. Necessarily if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he will have to challenge the same in the manner known to him under law. A xerox copy of the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the third respondent based on the petitioner's representation dated 14.08.2023 has also been handed over by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the open Court today.

¶30

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty for the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to the petitioner under law. Since the representation of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, has been considered and final orders passed by the third respondent on 23.08.2023, necessarily the petitioner will have to challenge the same in the manner known to the petitioner under law.

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.23778 of 2023

¶34

5.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the

¶35

petitioner to challenge the order passed by the third respondent, dated 23.08.2023, if so aggrieved, in the manner known to the petitioner under law.

¶36

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

08.09.2025

¶38

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No NCC:Yes/No LR

¶39

¶40

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶41

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram Revenue Divisional Office, Ramanathapuram.

¶42

The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

¶43

4/5

¶44

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

¶45

W.P(MD)No.23778 of 2023

¶46

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶47

¶48

W.P(MD).No.23778 of 2023

¶49

08.09.2025

¶50

5/5

¶51

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

Sundaram .K v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaram .K v. The District Collector

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

Prakash Vs The Vice Chancellor/ Registrar

Vincent.a Vs The Executive Officer

Mathavan.C Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Daniel Jonse.M Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Arockiyamary Vs the District Collector

Antonymonisan Vs the Union of India