K.Atchudemenon v. The Government Of Puducherry Through
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI K.Atchudemenon ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Government of Puducherry through The Secretary to Government (Fisheries) Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2. The Director, Department of Fisheries & Fishermen Welfare, Puducherry.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 24.09.2025 in O.A.No.1969 of 2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to complete the recruitment to the post of Ice Man on the basis of the regular employment notification dated 10.01.2016 issued by the second respondent and appoint the petitioner as Ice Man with all consequential monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar For Respondents : Mr.R.Syed Mustafa Special Government Pleader (Pondy) ***** 1/7
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.) Challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.1969 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025, the petitioner is before this Court with the present Writ Petition.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent issued notification dated 10.01.2016 No.3034/DFFW/Estt./E1/ 2016 to fill up the posts by direct recruitment on regular basis, in pursuance of which, the petitioner had applied for the post of Ice Man and his name was included in the selection list. While so, corrigendum notice dated 28.11.2017 has been issued, whereby the respondents tried to make appointment on contract basis with monthly salary of Rs.7,000/-, which is contrary to the notified Recruitment Rules.
2.1 Furthermore, as per the Government Order in G.O.No.60 dated 08.06.2012, all future appointments will be made on regular basis and contract system of appointment has been withdrawn and there will not be 2/7
any contract appointment in the Government of Puducherry. Therefore the respondents, having issued notification for the appointment on regular basis on 10.01.2016 and subsequently issuance of a corrigendum notice on 28.11.2017 for contract appointment, is contrary to the Recruitment Rules and the Government Order stated supra.
2.2 The Tribunal, without considering the above facts, simply dismissed the petition as infructuous, based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that they proposed to cancel both the notification dated 10.01.2016 and corrigendum dated 28.11.2017. Therefore the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) for the respondents would submit that even though, earlier, a notification dated 10.01.2016 had been issued for regular appointment, subsequently due to financial constraints, the Department could not recruit the employees on regular basis and hence a corrigendum dated 28.11.2017 has been issued for recruitment on contract basis.
3/7
3.1 However, now the respondents Department decided to recruit the employees only on regular appointment. Further the person, who already applied for the earlier notification dated 10.01.2016 need not apply again and thereby their age limit is protected. Therefore the Tribunal rightly dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner, which does not call for any interference of this Court.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly the respondents issued notification dated 10.01.2016 No.3034/DFFW/Estt./E1/2016 to fill up the posts by direct recruitment on regular basis and subsequently issued corrigendum dated 28.11.2017 to recruit the employees on contract basis, which was challenged by the writ petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the petition as infructuous recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent that they are going to cancel both the earlier notification and corrigendum, against which, the petitioner is before this Court. 4/7
It is the main contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the notification dated 10.01.2016 for regular appointment, he applied and his name also included in the selection list and subsequently the respondent stopped the process by issuing corrigendum, whereby tried to fill up the post on contract basis, which is against the Recruitment Rules. Now the learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) submitted that the Department has not selected any candidate on contract basis till date. Further a proposal for the conduct of fresh recruitment on regular basis through the Puducherry Examining Authority (PEA) and for cancellation of earlier notification has been submitted for approval of the Government. Further the learned Special Government Pleader fairly submitted that the persons, who already applied for the earlier notification dated 10.01.2016, need not apply again and their age limit would be protected.
In view of the above submissions, if any new notification is issued by the respondents for the post, for which the petitioner already 5/7
applied for the notification dated 10.01.2016, the petitioner need not apply again and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's earlier application and based on the same, selection process shall be proceeded further in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. With the above directions, the Writ Petition shall stand disposed of. No costs.
[PVJ] [KGTJ] 02.04.2026 cgi To
1. The Secretary to Government (Fisheries) The Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2. The Director, Department of Fisheries & Fishermen Welfare, Puducherry.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 6/7
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI. J.
cgi 02.04.2026 7/7