T.Surulirajan v. The Principal District Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR W.M.P. Nos.13746 and 13747 of 2023 T. Surulirajan Petitioner v The Principal District Judge Perambalur District Perambalur The Chief Administrative Officer Principal District Court Perambalur Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to call for the records of the first respondent and quash the order of the first respondent proceedings in A. No.28/2020/A1 dated 02.03.2020 and directing the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Office Assistant at Sub-Court, Perambalur, based on the petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2011. For petitioner Mr. R. Rajaram for Mr. D. Ashok Kumar For respondents Mr. S. Giridharan - - - - - 1/4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by the first respondent, in and by which, the appointment order dated 28.02.2020 issued by the first respondent, has been cancelled. According to the petitioner, he has not at all suppressed about his involvement in the criminal case in the application form. Further, according to him, as there was no column in the application form requiring him to state as to his involvement in a criminal case, he has not stated anything about his being involved in the criminal case, which can, by no stretch of imagination, be termed as suppression.

Be it noted, it is the stand of the respondents that pursuant to the notification dated 20.12.2019, applications were invited for temporary and contractual appointment in view of the emergent need to engage them for six months alone by following due process. Concededly, the persons who have been selected along with the petitioner, have been appointed and have been disengaged after a period of six months, in terms of the notification dated 20.12.2019 and thereafter, regular vacancies have been identified, applications called for and appointments made. It is not at all the case of the respondents that the petitioner 2/4

has suppressed his involvement in the criminal case and that his appointment order is cancelled because of such suppression. According to the respondents, since it was brought to their notice that there was a criminal case against the petitioner, his appointment, at the threshold, was cancelled. In view of the fact that the petitioner was selected to be appointed only on a temporary basis and that the persons who were selected along with him have been divested of their duties after six months and when it is there is no stigma caused in the cancellation order, inasmuch as there is an observation in the order that in view of the pendency of criminal case, the appointment order has been cancelled, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. In fine, this writ petition stands dismissed. Costs made easy. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed.

(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 13.07.2023 cad To The Principal District Judge Perambalur District Perambalur The Chief Administrative Officer Principal District Court Perambalur 3/4

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and K. RAJASEKAR, J.

cad 13.07.2023 4/4