Dhineshkumar, v. Natarajan,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR in WP(MD) No.30427 of 2025 Dhineshkumar ... Petitioner Vs 1.Natarajan The Managing Director (Central Office) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kattabomman Nagar Tirunelveli District 627 011.

2.Sivakumar The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vannarapettai Tirunelveli ... Respondents PRAYER :- Contempt Petition, filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the contemnors/respondents for the deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order dated 24.11.2025 in WP(MD) No.30427/2025.

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Jerin Mathew For Respondents :Mr.D.Jebaraj 1/4

O R D E R

This contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 24.11.2025 in WP(MD) No.30427 of 2025. By the said order, this Court direted the respondents to call the petitioner for interview and in case, if he passed within the zone of consideration, to consider his case for appointmnet for the vacancies notified by the respondents.

2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the recruitment process including written examination, interview, skill test etc. along with all other eligible candidates and he could not come up within the zone of consideration. Therefore, he was not appointed. He further submitted that in response to the legal notice issued by the petitioner through his counsel, a detailed reply has been furnished through letter dated 31.03.2026.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on 2/4

either side and has thoroughly convinced that the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Court. In case, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the process of selection or his non selection, it is always open for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings against the same. But, in no circumstances, the respondents can be held liable for contempt in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings against the selection process and consequential proceedings, if so adviced.

01.06.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No RR 3/4

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

RR 01.06.2026 4/4