J. Radhakrishnan Vs S. Kavitha Devi

Prayer:- Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order in Sub.Application No.1156 of 2024 in Cont.P.No.776 of 2024 dated 03.07.2025.

¶27

For Appellants : Mr.A.C.Manibharathi For Respondent : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.,)

¶30

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 03.07.2025 passed in Sub.Application No.1156 of 2024 in Cont.P.No.776 of 2024, by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

A perusal of the records would reveal that this Court while allowing the writ petition in W.P.No.3370 of 2018 on 17.03.2023, directed the respondents therein to promote the petitioner therein/respondent herein

¶33

Page 2 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

L.P.A.No.30 of 2025

¶36

to the post of B.T.Assistant (Maths) in the vacancies arose for the panel year 2010-11 retrospectively and based on seniority. Alleging non-compliance of the said order, the respondent herein filed Cont.P.No.776 of 2024, which came to be closed on 05.04.2024, recording the submission of the contempt petitioner that the order dated 17.03.2023 had already been complied with by the contemnors on 21.08.2023. Thereafter, the contempt petitioner filed a sub application in Sub.Appl.No.1156 of 2024 seeking to re-open Cont.P.No.776 of 2024, contending that she did not fall within the zone of consideration for promotion and that the contempt petition has been closed based on the misrepresentation made by the contemnors. The said Sub Application came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 03.07.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. It is also seen that Cont.P.No.776 of 2024 was subsequently closed on 11.11.2025.

¶37

However, a perusal of the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in the contempt petition would show that the same was closed solely on the ground that a stay had been granted by the Division Bench and not on merits. Therefore, we are of the view that permitting the revival of the

¶38

Page 3 of 5

¶39

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

¶40

L.P.A.No.30 of 2025

¶41

contempt proceedings would not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. Hence, the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Cont.P.No.776 of 2024, is set aside and the contempt petition is restored to file. The matter shall be listed before the learned Single Judge for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. The appellants are at liberty to canvass their submissions before the Contempt Court.

¶42

In view of the above, the present Letter Patent Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the interim order stands vacated and the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43