V.Sabarishwaran Vs P.Madhusudhan Reddy, IAS

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.164 of 2023.

¶23

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Venkata Varathan

¶24

For Respondents: Mr.T.Gowthaman Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. K.Kumaran Government Pleader

¶25

Cont.P.No.1280 of 2026:

¶26

1.K.Natrayan S/o B.Kamatchi, 10/42, Chellamanthadi Post, Karur Road, Dindigul District.

¶27

2.M.Balaji,

¶28

S/o. P.Murugesan, 20-A, Annai Illam, Nagalpudhur 5th Street, Dindigul.

¶29

_______________ Page 2 of 10_

¶30

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

¶31

Cont.P.Nos.1213 and 1280 of 2026

¶32

3.S.Balaji,

¶33

No.291, South Street, Ayyapatti Post, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶34

4.S.Karthick Raja, S/o.R.Subramanian, 2/125-A, Chockanathapuram, Achampathu, Madurai.

¶35

5.N.Seetha,

¶36

W/o.R.T.Sivakumar,

¶37

3/108-B, Chellaihpuram, Patchamalaiyankottai, Nilakottai Taluk., Dindigul.

¶38

6.J.Gopinath,

¶39

S/o.S.Jeyaraman, 34-B, Perumal Samy Compound, Kakkan Nagar, Nagalnagar Post, Dindigul.

¶40

7.V.Sabariswaran,

¶41

11, Bharathithasan Street, Samathuvapuram, Kollumam Post, Madathukulam Taluk, Tirupur District.

¶42

8.K.Rajeshwari,

¶43

4/155, Ramiyanahalli Village and Post, Pappireddypatty Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶44

K.Eswaran,

¶45

1/125, Vathalthoppam Patty, Siluvathur Via, Dindigul District.

¶46

_______________ Page 3 of 10_

¶47

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

¶48

Cont.P.Nos.1213 and 1280 of 2026

¶49

10.R.Sharmila

¶50

168/3, South Street, Paramathevan Patty, Muthalapuram, Uthamapalayam Talukk, Theni District.

¶51

11.S.Praveen, S/o. Surulivel, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Melampatty Odaipatty, Thamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶52

12.B.Suresh, S/o. Baskaran,

¶53

2/30-A, Devaalagarpatty, Narasingapuram Post, A.Vellodu, Dindigul District.

¶54

13.S.Prithiviraj, S/o. Sundararaj, 2/8, Kutladampatti, Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District.

¶55

14.G.R.Vijayalakshmi,

¶56

W/o. Sureshkumar, 5/94, Poosaripalayam, Vadugamuniyappam Palayam Post, Namakkal District.

¶57

15.R.Manikandan,

¶58

1/136/88, Vadapatty Adidravidar Street, Udayar Koil, Ammapettai, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶59

Petitioners

¶60

_______________ Page 4 of 10_

¶61

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

¶62

Cont.P.Nos.1213 and 1280 of 2026

¶63

Vs

¶64

1.P.Madhusudhan Reddy, IAS.,

¶65

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. Now at No.75, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.

¶66

2.Dr.D.Karthikeyan, I.A.S., The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶67

Respondents

¶68

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2641 of 2022.

¶69

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Venkata Varathan

¶70

For Respondents: Mr.T.Gowthaman Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.K.Kumaran Government Pleader

¶71

_______________ Page 5 of 10_

¶72

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

¶73

Cont.P.Nos.1213 and 1280 of 2026

¶74

COMMON ORDER

¶75

(Order of the Court was made by G.Arul Murugan,J.)

¶76

These contempt petitions allege willful disobedience of the order dated 18.12.2025 passed in W.A.Nos.164 of 2023 and 2641 of 2022.

¶77

This Court, vide common judgment dated 18.12.2025, allowed the appeals and directed the respondents to forthwith select and appoint the shortlisted candidates possessing GRI certificates for the 110 vacancies under 2017 notification as Sanitary Inspectors in the Municipalities where there are vacancies, irrespective of their upper age limit, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. For ease of reference, paragraph 43 of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

¶78

“43. In the result, the orders impugned in these three Writ Appeals are quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the official respondents herein, to forthwith select and appoint the shortlisted candidates, possessing the GRI certificates for the 110 vacancies under the 2017 notification, as Sanitary Inspectors in the municipalities where there are vacancies, irrespective of their upper age limit. Such appointment

¶79

_______________ Page 6 of 10_

¶80

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

¶81

Cont.P.Nos.1213 and 1280 of 2026

¶82

orders shall be made atleast within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals stand allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.”

¶83

Admittedly, the State has preferred SLPs before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are stated to have been dismissed on 09.04.2026.

¶84

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, by producing G.O.(Ms) No.148, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC.7) Department, dated 16.7.2026, has submitted that, in compliance with the order passed by this Court, already the Government had accorded approval and permitted the Director of Municipal Administration to select and appoint 110 candidates who hold certificates from Gandhigram Rural Institute and are on the eligibility list to the vacant posts of Sanitary Inspector. Paragraph 3 of the said Government Order, reads thus:

¶85

“3. The Government have carefully examined the proposal of the Director of Municipal Administration in light of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Court of Madras as indicated in

¶86

_______________ Page 7 of 10_

¶87

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

¶88

Cont.P.Nos.1213 and 1280 of 2026

¶89

paragraph 2 above. Accordingly, the Government permit the Director of Municipal Administration to select and appoint 110 candidates who hold certificates from the Gandhigram Rural Institute and are on the eligibility list to the vacant posts of Sanitary Inspector in municipalities as per the notification issued in the year 2017, and to issue appointment orders in municipalities where vacancies exist, without regard to the candidates’ upper age limit, in compliance with the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on 18.12.2025 in Writ Appeal Nos.2641/2022, 164/2023 and 728/2023 as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India I Special Leave Petitions No.8184-8186/2026.”

¶90

Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that, in compliance with the order passed by this Court, the Director of Municipal Administration has also started the process and some time is required to complete the process and, after identification, necessary appointment orders would also be issued.

¶91

In view of the submission made by learned Additional Advocate General, we are inclined to close the contempt petitions by directing the respondents to ensure complete compliance of the order of this Court by issuing appointment orders within a period of eight

¶92

_______________ Page 8 of 10_

¶93

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

¶94

Cont.P.Nos.1213 and 1280 of 2026

¶95

weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶96

It is made clear that it would be open for the petitioners to revive the contempt petitions, if the order is not complied with.

¶97

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 16.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr