Ramakrishnan.K v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE K.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Dindigul.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Dindigul.
3.The Block Development Officer (Panchayat), Dindigul Panchayat Union, Dindigul District.
4.The President, Anaipatti Village Panchayat, Dindigul Panchayat Union, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4294/2021/Ooo, dated 17.03.2022 quash the same as illegal and 1/5
consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate / appoint for the petitioner with continuity of service of any suitable post at any respondents Department within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Palanichamy For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the third respondent, rejecting the petitioner's request to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service of any suitable post in the respondent Department.
2. The petitioner claims that he has been wrongfully removed from service as a Panchayat Clerk in the year 1998. Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.377 of 2019, seeking for a mandamus to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Panchayat Clerk. This Court in the said writ petition by its order dated 12.11.2021, passed in W.P.(MD).No.377 of 2019, after making an observation that in the normal circumstances, the Court would not have been inclined to entertain a writ petition as the petitioner had sat tight on an issue for a period in excess of 20 years. But only due to the fact that the representation was forwarded to the 2/5
Assistant Director of Village Panchayat as well as the District Collector, a direction was issued by this Court to the Block Development Officer to conduct an enquiry and pass final orders on the petitioner's representation, seeking for reinstatement as a Panchayat Clerk. Based on the said directions, the impugned order dated 17.03.2022 came to be passed by the third respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for reinstatement on the ground of laches. Admittedly, the petitioner was removed from service as a Panchayat Clerk in the year 1998 itself. Admittedly, he did not take action for more than twenty years, but, chose to give a representation seeking for his reinstatement only on 22.07.2021. This Court in its order dated 12.11.2021 passed in W.P.(MD).No.
377 of 2019, in the writ petition filed by the very same petitioner for a mandamus had also observed that in normal circumstances, the Court would not entertain the writ petition, since the petitioner had sat tight on his rights for more than twenty years and only due to the fact that the representation of the petitioner was forwarded to the concerned authorities, a direction was issued to the Block Development Officer to pass final orders on the petitioner's representation. The Block Development Officer (the third respondent herein) based on the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner has also rejected the petitioner's representation on the ground of laches.
3. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 15.10.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no TSG To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Dindigul.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Dindigul.
3.The Block Development Officer (Panchayat), Dindigul Panchayat Union, Dindigul District.
4.The President, Anaipatti Village Panchayat, Dindigul Panchayat Union, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.
4/5
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
TSG 15.10.2025 5/5