T.Sundaraj Perumal, v. The District Collector,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN T.Sundaraj Perumal .. Appellant/writ petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.
2.The Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, Marungapuri, Trichy District.
3.The Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.
4.Ayyappan 5.Thangaraj 6.Muthamilselvan 7.P.Ramachandran 8.Annadurai 9.M.Subbuvalli 1/6
10.Meenakshi 11.K.Shanthi 12.Saritha 13.Anusuya Devi .. Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 12.09.2017 passed in W.P(MD)No.23504 of 2017. For Appellant : Mr.AN.Ramanathan For Respondents : Mr.A..K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3, R6, R8 & R9 :Mr.R.Subramanian for R10 : Mr.J.Anandkumar for R4, R5 and R7
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.) The writ petitioner before the writ Court is the appellant herein. The writ petition was filed for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the paper publication dated 26.07.2016 issued by the second respondent in Dinathanthi Tamil Daily Newspaper calling for applications to the post of Village Assistant in the second respondent Taluk Villages and direct the second 2/6
respondent to issue proper publication by mentioning the appropriate reservation to the post of Village Assistant to the respective Villages in the second respondent Taluk and conduct interview to select eligible candidate based on the category of reservation mentioned for the post of Village Assistant in the respective Villages in the second respondent Taluk.
2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner/appellant belonging to Ayan Poruvoi Village coming under Marungapuri Taluk, has wrongly sent his application to the Tahsildar, Manaparai Taluk/third respondent instead of sending his application to the second respondent. The third respondent, after verifying the particulars, decided to allow him to participate in the selection process conducted by the Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk/second respondent as per the Notification, dated 26.07.2016. Accordingly, the petitioner/appellant took part in the selection process conducted by the second respondent. The learned Single Judge in the writ petition observed that the petitioner/appellant, after accepting the call letter and taking part in the selection process, he cannot challenge the notification issued by the second respondent and hence, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 12.09.2017. 3/6
3. As per the order of this Court dated 12.09.2017, by proceedings in Na.Ka.543/2016 dated 02.10.2017, the Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk/second respondent appointed 11 Village Assistants and they have been working for nearly 7 years in their respective posts. The learned Special Government Pleader produced a copy of the said proceedings dated 02.10.2017 before this Court.
4. This Court also find that the above said candidates were appointed as per the settled legal procedures. Hence, nothing survives in this appeal and accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No Costs. [V.B.S.,J.] [K.K.R.K.,J.] 04.03.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PJL To 1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.
4/6
2.The Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, Marungapuri, Trichy District.
3.The Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.
5/6
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
PJL 04.03.2024 6/6