Sundaram .K v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P(MD).No.23778 of 2023 K.Sundaram ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram Revenue Divisional Office, Ramanathapuram.

3. The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.08.2023 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner for the post of Village Assistant in any one of the villages kept vacant 1/5

1.Kadambanendhal 2.Nilammalagiyamangalam at Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram district.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dinesh For Respondent : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 14.08.2023 and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the post of Village Assistant in any one of the villages kept vacant. 2.Counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent on behalf of the respondents in this writ petition. In paragraph No.6 of the said counter affidavit, the third respondent has categorically stated that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 14.08.2023, the subject matter of the writ petition, the third respondent has also passed final orders on 23.08.2023. The third respondent has stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner will have to challenge the said order, dated 23.08.2023. 2/5

3.The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that his representation, dated 14.08.2023 was not considered by the respondents. However as seen from the counter affidavit filed before this Court, the third respondent has considered the petitioner's representation dated 14.08.2023 and has passed a final order dated 23.08.2023. Necessarily if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he will have to challenge the same in the manner known to him under law. A xerox copy of the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the third respondent based on the petitioner's representation dated 14.08.2023 has also been handed over by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the open Court today.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty for the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to the petitioner under law. Since the representation of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, has been considered and final orders passed by the third respondent on 23.08.2023, necessarily the petitioner will have to challenge the same in the manner known to the petitioner under law. 3/5

5.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the third respondent, dated 23.08.2023, if so aggrieved, in the manner known to the petitioner under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

08.09.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No NCC:Yes/No LR To

1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram Revenue Divisional Office, Ramanathapuram.

3. The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

4/5

ABDUL QUDDHOSE , J.

LR W.P(MD).No.23778 of 2023 08.09.2025 5/5