R.Dharmaraj v. Mr. C.Sureshkumar, I.A.S.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR R.Dharmaraj ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

Mr. C.Sureshkumar, I.A.S., The Director, BC, MBC and Minorities Welfare Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

... Contemnor(s) Prayer:- Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for having willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.No. 31658 of 2022 dated 28.11.2022.

Page No. 1/6

For Petitioner(s) :

Mr.R.Ramesh For Respondent(s):

Mrs.Yamuna Devi, SGP

ORDER

This contempt petition is filed to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for having willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.No. 31658 of 2022 dated 28.11.2022. 2.When the contempt case is taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent, by drawing attention of this Court to the paragraph no.7 of the order in the nd respondent above writ petition, submits that this Court had directed the 2 in the writ petition, who is the sole respondent herein, to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner's representation, dated 20.10.2022, seeking for his appointment as a Cook in the existing Page No. 2/6

vacancies.

3.Learned Special Government Pleader however, submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the respondent, on considering the representation of the petitioner dated 20.10.2022, had passed final orders, dated 13.11.2025, rejecting the claim of the petitioner by indicating various reasons which has been stated in the said order. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the reasons indicated by the respondent to reject the representation of the petitioner are not sustainable.

5.However, it is to be noted that in a contempt proceedings, the correctness or otherwise of the order passed pursuant to the direction of this Court cannot be gone into, and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he is free to pursue the writ remedies available to him. Page No. 3/6

6.Since the respondents now have passed an order on the representation of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the respondents have complied with the order of this Court, though with a delay. Thus, there is no need to proceed further in the present Contempt petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to assail the action of the respondent if he is aggrieved by the order passed. 7.Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. 14.11.2025 Sha Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Page No. 4/6

T.VINOD KUMAR J.

(sha) Page No. 5/6

.11.2025 Page No. 6/6