Radhakrishnan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.894 & 895 of 2020 Radhakrishnan ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamilnadu rep.by the District Collector Madurai District, Madurai 2.The District Employment Officer Employment Exchange Office of Madurai District K.Pudur, Madurai-625 002 3.The Special Officer-cum- Block Development Officer Vadipatti Panchayat Union Vadipatti Taluk, Vadipatti Madurai District 4.The Chairman Vadipatti Panchayat Union Vadipatti, Madurai District

5.The President Thiruvalavayanallur Village (T.V.Nallur) Village Panchayat Vadipatti Taluk Madurai District 6.Velan ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the appointment of the 6th respondent as Panchayat Secretary in 5th respondent Panchayat as per the notification in Na.Ka.No.432/T2/2018 dated 27.03.2018 as per the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1617/2018/T2 dated 07.12.2019 and to quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents 1, 3 to 5 to appoint the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary in 5th respondent Panchayat.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan For Respondents :

Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja for R6

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 07.12.2019, issued by the respondent - Panchayat Union.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the sixth respondent as Panchayat Secretary in the fifth respondent - Panchayat.

3. Even though the grievance of the petitioner is only against the sixth respondent, the impugned order dated 07.12.2019 does not refer to the sixth respondent. The impugned order only gives the details of the number of applicants, number of participants and number of absentees in the selection process. Only pursuant to the aforementioned selection process, the sixth respondent was appointed as Panchayat Secretary. The appointment order issued in favour of the sixth respondent has not been challenged. The petitioner has challenged the mere communication addressed to a person, by name, D.Sethu, dated 07.12.2019, who is not a party to this writ petition. When the petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the sixth respondent as Panchayat Secretary, he ought to have challenged his appointment order.

The petitioner is also not having the benefit of any interim order from this Court even though this writ petition was filed in the year 2020.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 12.11.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk To:

1.The District Collector, State of Tamilnadu, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The District Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Office of Madurai District, K.Pudur, Madurai-625 002.

3.The Special Officer-cum- Block Development Officer, Vadipatti Panchayat Union, Vadipatti Taluk, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

krk and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.894 & 895 of 2020 12.11.2025