Appellant filed writ appeal challenging an order dated 17.06.2019. Since a coordinate Division Bench dismissed a similar appeal by another petitioner on 04.11.2019 reasoning the service was purely contractual, this court dismissed the appeal to avoid taking a contra view.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.(MD)No.416 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
W.A.(MD)No.416 of 2021 and
C.M.P.(MD)No.1550 of 2021
R.Balasundar Raja
... Appellant
Vs.
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.10897 of 2014 dated 17.06.2019 on the file of this Court.
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.416 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.V.Karthick Raja, For M/s.Ajmal Associates.
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino,
Spl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2. Mr.S.Vinayak, Standing Counsel for R3.
JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the common order dated 17.06.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.10897 of 2014 etc batch. It is fairly brought to our notice that one of the writ petitioners namely one S.Thiruppathi filed W.A.(MD)No.1135 of 2019. The said writ appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 04.11.2019. Paragraph No.5 of the said order reads as follows:-
“5. On a perusal of the notification issued by the third respondent corporation dated 15.06.2005, we find that the notification was for recruitment on contract basis. The notification clearly stipulates the tenure of contract, which is for one year initially and if both agree, it is extendable for another two years. Thus, as per the terms of the notification, the appointment was
2/6
W.A.(MD)No.416 of 2021
purely temporary/contractual and the tenure has already been fixed for one year. Presumably, because of the interim order granted in the writ petition, the petitioner was continued in service for a certain length of time. But, beyond 2014, the petitioner was no longer in service since the tenure is for one year initially and is extendable for another two years only if both parties agree ie., the third respondent corporation and the appellant. In the instant case, it is clear that there is no such agreement made by the third respondent corporation. Therefore, we are of the clear view that the services of the appellant cannot be regularised as it was a contractual appointment for the tenure of one year on a consolidated basis.”
2.When the order impugned in this writ appeal was already confirmed by a coordinate Division Bench of this Court, it may not be appropriate for us to take any contra view. The writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.K.M. J.,) 09.01.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias
3/6
W.A.(MD)No.416 of 2021
To:
4/6
W.A.(MD)No.416 of 2021
5/6
W.A.(MD)No.416 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and R.KALAIMATHI, J.
ias
W.A.(MD)No.416 of 2021
09.01.2026 (2/2)
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal can be allowed given that a coordinate Division Bench has already dismissed a writ appeal by another petitioner on the same principles of contractual appointment.
R. Balasundar Raja
State of Tamil Nadu
Commissioner of Municipality Administration
Commissioner, Madurai Corporation
G.R. Swaminathan
R. Kalaimathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
