T Madhan v. A Manivannan, M.E

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.11.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and WMP No.14145 of 2020 1 T. Madhan 2 K. Mohan Kumara Mangalam 3 P. Nagarasan

...Petitioners

Vs.

A Manivannan M.E Chief Engineer/Personnal Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited(TANGEDCO) NPKR Ramasamy Maligai No. 144 Anna Salai, Chennai.

...Respondent

This Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the Respondent for willful disobedience of Order dated 02.12.2019 passed by this Hon`ble Court in W.P. No. 21776 of 2019. For Petitioners :

Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram senior counsel for M/s.C.Uma 1/4

For Respondent :

Mr.Karthik Rajan senior standing counsel

ORDER

This Contempt Petition has been filed on the ground that the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 21776 of 2019 dated 02.12.2019 has not been complied with.

2.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the first petitioner, namely, T.Madhan has already been given an appointment order and the learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the posting orders will be issued in a couple of days. 3.

Insofar as the second and third petitioners are concerned, a careful perusal of the selection list issued by the respondent shows that the second and third petitioners do not fall within the zone of consideration. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners pressed the Contempt Petition insofar as the second petitioner is concerned and urged that there must be equal distribution as among the disabled persons and consequently, the second petitioner, who suffers from hard of hearing is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. 2/4

4.

In the considered view of this Court, while dealing with the Contempt Petition, this Court must only see if there is any violation of the orders passed by this Court and this Court cannot go into the merits of the case and deal with the contention raised by the learned senior counsel. If the second petitioner is aggrieved by the selection list published by the respondent, the second petitioner will have to independently agitate his rights in the manner known to law. This Court cannot go into the issue as to whether the respondent was right in not preferring the second petitioner for appointment under the disability of hard of hearing.

5.

In view of the above, no further order is passed in this Contempt Petition and the same is closed.

SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM. CASES) mra //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2020. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

3/4

To Chief Engineer/Personnal Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited(TANGEDCO) NPKR Ramasamy Maligai No. 144 Anna Salai, Chennai.

4/4