T.Srinivasan Vs State of Tamilnadu

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ in the nature of Declaration, to declare that the G.O. Ms.No.96, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) Department dated 06.06.2008 of the 1st respondent herein is ultravires of the provisions of the

¶23

Page1 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 18348 of 2008

¶26

Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service Rules in particular and against Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the absorption of 543 Technical Assistants who were working in National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and Tsunami District Implementation Units as Overseers in the Tamilnadu Panchayat Develop. Engineering Subordinate Services.

¶27

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.ILAYARAJA For Respondent(s): MR. C.P. GOUTHAM GOVT ADVOCATE FOR RR1 TO 4. MR. K.K.PRASANTH FOR M/S.V.PERUMAL A.GOVINDASAMY FOR RR5 TO 8

¶28

ORDER

¶29

When the matter is listed today under the caption “for dismissal”, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by an order of this Court dated 04.06.2026 in W.P. No. 30162 of 2008 (Batch).

¶30

In the said order, this Court, taking note of the judgment passed by the

¶31

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 776 & 777 of 2008 and the judgment rendered by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No. 6239 of 2008 (Batch) dated 24.09.2010, had dismissed the writ petitions.

¶32

Page2 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 18348 of 2008

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondents, while reiterating the above

¶36

submission, has placed a copy of the order of this Court dated 04.06.2026 passed in W.P. No. 30162 of 2008 (Batch) before this Court.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not

¶38

dispute the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶39

In view of the above, since the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 30162 of 2008 (Batch), which in turn followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Madurai Bench of this Court, for the reasons alike as set out in

¶40

the said order the present writ petition does not merit consideration.

¶41