K.Murugesan v. the Chief General Manager

Madras HC10 Jun 2026WP/12053/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.No.12053 of 2006; K. Murugesan vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (Chief General Manager, Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle, Chennai and General Manager, Telecom, Erode); Article 226; writ petition closed as infructuous; cause does not survive; no opinion on merits; no costs; Junior Accounts Officers Part I Screening Test; proceedings No.SCT/4-111/96 dated 25.03.2006; possible reference to Central Administrative Tribunal left unverified; Judge T. Vinod Kumar; decided 10.06.2026; advocates: A. Brinda Devi Priya for P. Rajendran (petitioner), V. Chandrasekaran, Senior Panel Counsel (respondents).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed as infructuous without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter; no costs awarded. ¶¶20

K.Murugesan Vs the Chief General Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.12053 of 2006

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.06.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.12053 of 2006

¶7

K.Murugesan 23-A, Bharathiar Nagar, Kaikatti Valasu, Erode – 638 104, Erode District.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle, Chennai – 2.

¶11

The General Manager, Telecom Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Erode – 638 001, Erode District. … Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in proceedings No.SCT/4-111/96 at Chennai – 2, dated 25.03.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in the Junior Accounts Officers Part I Screening Test to be held on 30.04.2006.

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.12053 of 2006

¶16

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Brinda Devi Priya for Mr.P.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran Senior Panel Counsel

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration and thus, the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that she is unable to state before this Court with authenticity as to whether the subject matter has been referred to Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid submission and since the learned counsel for the petitioner herself states that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration, this writ petition is closed as infructuous without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. No costs.

¶21

10.06.2026

¶22

Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dh

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.12053 of 2006

¶26

¶27