Madras High CourtWP/1430/2012disposed of

Tmt.S. Kanchanamala v. The Chennai Metropolitan

2024-02-26Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.02.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY S.Kanchanamala .. Petitioner

Versus

1. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

2. R.Magudapathy .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 10.06.2011 bearing Proc.No.E2/8574/2011 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same insofar as 2nd respondent is concerned and consequently forbearing the 1st respondent, their men, agents, subordinate and persons claiming through them from promoting the 2nd respondent either temporarily or permanently to the post of Deputy Planner in the 1st respondent authority. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohan For Respondents : Mrs.P.Veena Suresh, for R1 : Mrs.T.Subbiksha, 1/4

for Mr.M.Ravi, for R2

ORDER

This Writ Petition relates to inter se seniority in the cadre of Assistant Planner.

2. One Magudapathy was placed as senior to the petitioner, Kanchanamala in the seniority list. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation that she should be placed above. The first respondent found that the petitioner is senior and accordingly altered the seniority list. The said Magudapathy challenged the said order of alteration of seniority in W.P.No.12886 of 2010 and obtained an interim order of stay. Pursuant to the interim order of stay, the same was implemented by an order, dated 23.07.2010 granting promotion to the said Magudapathy, however, subject to the result of the main Writ Petition.

3. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the said proceedings. As a matter of fact, the petitioner, Kanchanamala is the second respondent in the said Writ Petition filed by Magudapathy. As such, all the rights of the parties have to be canvassed in the said earlier Writ Petition i.e., 2/4

W.P.No.12886 of 2010 and the second Writ Petition, challenging only the order implementing the interim orders of the Court, is only superfluous.

4. Accordingly, keeping the rights of the parties open to be decided in W.P.No.12886 of 2010, this Writ Petition in W.P.No.1430 of 2012 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 26.02.2024 Index : yes Speaking order : no grs To The Member Secretary, The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

3/4

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs 26.02.2024 4/4