K.Velazhagan Vs Ashish Madhaorao More, IAS and Another

Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Respondents herein for willfully and wantonly violating the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 16.07.2024 in W.P.No.6605 of 2010.

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.Saravanan For Respondent(s): Mr.Syed Mustafa Special Government Pleader (Puducherry)

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

CONT P No. 2643 of 2025

¶21

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K.Kumaresh Babu J.)

¶22

The Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the Respondents herein

¶23

for willfully and wantonly violating the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 16.07.2024 in W.P.No.6605 of 2010.

¶24

When the matter was taken up, the learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed on record an order dated 22.07.2025, addressed to the petitioner, wherein it has been indicated that as per the directions issued by this Court, the alleged violation of which is complained of, the contemnors have considered the candidature of the petitioner and having found that he is not eligible as he did not qualify and that there were other candidates, who had secured higher marks than the petitioner, negatived the claim of the petitioner, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law. He would submit that the directions issued by this Court had been duly complied with and hence prays appropriate orders to be passed in the contempt petition.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that this Court, considering the special case of the petitioner, had directed the respondents to consider his candidature by relaxing the age and issue an appointment order to him. However, treating the petitioner as a fresh recruit,

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

CONT P No. 2643 of 2025

¶29

without considering the relaxation of age and without issuing an appointment order as directed by this Court, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that there are other candidates with higher marks. He would submit that this conduct of the respondents is in violation of the order passed by this Court.

¶30

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶31

The order in the writ petition, the violation of which is complained of,

¶32

had been passed in a writ petition filed by the respondents/contemnors, challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had set aside the process of selection on the ground that appointments had been made beyond the vacancies that were notified. This Court had quashed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and had allowed the writ petition. A further direction was given to consider the claim of the petitioner herein, if he was otherwise eligible, for selection to the post of Village Administrative Officer by relaxing the age.

¶33

The order placed before us dated 22.07.2025 would indicate that, on the finding that there were other candidates, who were higher up in the merit list, the respondents had not considered the relaxation of age sought by the

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

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

¶36

CONT P No. 2643 of 2025

¶37

petitioner. It has been specifically indicated that a merit list of 608 candidates had been published, in which the petitioner’s name was not found and therefore

¶38

the petitioner had not secured enough marks to be included in the merit list.

¶39