Disposed¶31

S.Candhy v. The Chief Secretary to

Madras HC8 Apr 2026WP/21780/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court 08-04-2026; WP No. 21780 of 2014; quo warranto; Article 226 Constitution of India; Puducherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Limited (PASIC); Consultant appointment 02.12.2013; H.Dasarathan; S.Candhy and M.Ramamoorthy petitioners; counsel M/S.R.Thigarajan; respondents no representation; disposed of, no costs; fifth respondent no longer in service.

What did the court decide?

Since the fifth respondent is no longer in service, the Court found no further orders necessary and disposed of the Writ Petition with no costs. ¶31

S.Candhy Vs The Chief Secretary to — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 21780 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 21780 of 2014

¶6

S.Candhy

¶7

M.Ramamoorthy

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Chief Secretary to Government, Chief Secretariat, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

¶11

The Secretary to Government (Agriculture)(, Cheif Secretariat, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

¶12

The Chairman Puducherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Ltd., Thattanchavady, Puducherry 605 009.

¶13

The Managing Director Puducherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Ltd., Thattanchavady, Puducherry 605 009.

¶14

5. H.Dasarathan

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking Writ of Warrant, questioning under what authority the 5th respondent is continuing in office as Consultant Puducherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Limited, Puducherry.

¶17

For Petitioner(s): M/S.R.Thigarajan For Respondent(s): NA

¶18

Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 21780 of 2014

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition questioning the authority of the 5th respondent in continuing his office as Consultant Puducherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Limited, Puducherry.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, employees of the Puducherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Limited (PASIC), have challenged the appointment of the fifth respondent as Consultant by proceedings dated 02.12.2013. According to the petitioners, the said appointment was made without following the prescribed procedure, without inviting applications or constitution a Selection Committee, and without obtaining necessary approvals from the competent authorities. It is further alleged that the appointment is arbitrary and in violation of the applicable rules and norms. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners submitted representations, which were not considered. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto.

¶24

There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 21780 of 2014

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fifth

¶29

respondent is no more in service. He further submitted that, since the Writ Petition is filed questioning the authority under which the fifth respondent is

¶30

continuing office, no further orders are required in the present Writ Petition.

¶31