Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Alagarasan on 11 August, 2021
W.A.No.2072 of 2018 and
C.M.P. No.16338 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.2072 of 2018 and
C.M.P. No.16338 of 2018
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary, Environment & Forest Department
Fort St. George
Chennai - 9
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of Tamil Nadu
Panagal Building, Saidapet
Chennai - 600 015
3.The District Forest Officer
Namakkal District
Namakkal .. Appellants
Vs.
1.Alagarasan
2.S.Ponnusamy
3.P.Mani
4.R.Ponnusamy
5.S.Yuveneswaran
Page 1/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.2072 of 2018 and
C.M.P. No.16338 of 2018
***
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the
order dated 12.09.2014 made in W.P.No.23647/2013 on the file of this
Court.
***
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan
State Government Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Mani
JUDGMENT
[delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.]
This intra-court appeal is preferred by the Government against the
order passed in W.P. No.23647 of 2013 seeking issuance of mandamus
directing the appellants to appoint the petitioner in the cadre post of
Forest Watcher by giving relaxation with respect to height by extending
the benefit of G.O.(2D) Ms. No.56, Environment and Forest Department
dated 06.09.2006.
2. In a similar batch of writ appeals, this Court, by Judgment dated
20.01.2015 in W.A.No.1703 of 2014, had passed the following order:
“There is no dispute that to be a Forest Watcher,
one should possess physical requirement of height of 163
Page 2/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.2072 of 2018 and
C.M.P. No.16338 of 2018
cms. and 79 cms. of chest with 5 cms. Expansion. It
appears that in the case of the writ petitioner/respondent
herein, there is no deficiency in chest measurement.
However, there is some deficiency in his height. The
appellants have failed to establish as to how the
deficiency in his height would substantially affect his
performance, especially, when he has been working as
Plot Watcher for the last 25 years. The appellants had,
indisputably, granted the benefit to other employees.
Thus, in the light of the same, we are of the considered
view that the order passed by the Writ Court, which is
sought to be impugned in the instant appeal, does not
warrant interference in the facts of the case. However,
we make it clear that the question of law involved in the
case on hand is left open to be decided in the
appropriate case.”
3. The said decision was based on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ghan Sham Sunder and Others vs. State of Punjab
and Others, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 508. Admittedly, these writ
petitioners were engaged by the department from the year 1985 and they
were also regularised on 07.08.2009.
Page 3/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.2072 of 2018 and
C.M.P. No.16338 of 2018
4. Considering the length of service rendered by them they should
also be appropriately considered for relaxing the height required for the
said post. Accordingly, the benefit of the Judgment in W.A.No.1703 of
2014 is extended to the respondents herein also. In view of the same, the
writ appeal preferred by the Government is dismissed. No costs.
[P.S.N. J.] [K.R. J.]
11.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
Asr
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary, Environment & Forest Department
Fort St. George
Chennai - 9
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of Tamil Nadu
Panagal Building, Saidapet
Chennai - 600 015
3.The District Forest Officer
Namakkal District
Namakkal
Page 4/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.2072 of 2018 and
C.M.P. No.16338 of 2018
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asr
W.A.No.2072 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.16338 of 2018
11.08.2021
Page 5/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
