The State Of Tamilnadu v. S.Jayabharathi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Special Original Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eleventh day of April Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.VELMURUGAN WMP(MD) No.2975 of 2017 IN WP(MD) No.15316 of 2016 THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, FORT ST GEORGE, CHENNAI-009.

... PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT Vs 1 S.JAYABHARATHI ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER. 2 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE DINDIGUL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT. Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to delete the petitioner/first respondent namely, the principal Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai -009 from the cause title of the above Writ Petition on the ground of mis-joined of the parties.

Prayer in WP(MD). 15316/ 2016 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court Pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned selection List dated 27.02.2016 published by the 2nd respondent Principal District Judge, Dindigul in their official website for recruitment to the posts of Senior Bailiff, Quash the same in so far as it omits the Roster Point 2 intended for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyars)- W/DW -Priority, and further direct the 2nd respondent Principal District Judge to consider the petitioner for appointment to the said post against the said Roster Point 2 intended for Scheduled Caste Arunthathiyars) W/DW Priority in the said post.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing

the arguments of MR.R.ANANDHA RAJ, Government Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.T.CIBI CHAKRABORTHY, Advocate for the 1st respondent, and of MR.K.SAMIDURAI, Advocate for the 2nd Respondent. on behalf of the Respondents the court made the following order:- Since the Second respondent/Selection authority has referred to the various Government orders dealing with the rule of reservations, we deem it appropriate to retain the first respondent in the array of parties. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 11/04/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-600 009.

2 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

ORDER

IN WMP(MD) No.2975 of 2017 IN WP(MD) No.15316 of 2016 Date :11/04/2017 AM/RSK JM/SAR-4/12.04.2017/2P/3C.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/