Madras High Court
Dr.M.Arunachalam vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar ... on 3 December, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.204 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.A.(MD) No.204 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014
Dr.M.Arunachalam ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
By its Registrar
Abishekapatti
Tirunelveli-627 012
2.The Selection Committee
Rep.by its Vice Chancellor
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
Abishekapatti
Tirunelveli-627 012
3.Dr.A.Mohandoss
4.Dr.E.Uday Bashara Reddy
5.Dr.S.Panagali
____________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.204 of 2008
6.Dr.N.Chandrasekar
7.Dr.P.Kannappan
8.Dr.A.G.Murugesan ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 29.02.2008, passed in W.P.(MD) No.7130 of 2007, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Ms.D.Geetha
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R1 & R2
Mr.S.Xavier Rajini for R8
R3 to R7 – No appearance
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
This writ appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner
challenging the order dated 29.02.2008 passed in W.P.(MD) No.7130 of 2007.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.204 of 2008
2. The appellant filed the said writ petition challenging the
resolution of the Board dated 20.08.2007. The learned Single Judge, by the
impugned order, has held that resolution of the Board cannot be questioned
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, for the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner that once it is found
that Selection Committee has not been validly constituted, mere participation
of the appellant / petitioner in the selection process cannot be held as an
estoppel against him since there can be no estoppel against any statute, the
learned Single Judge has held that since a Committee has been validly
constituted, the question applying the principle of estoppel does not arise at
all. By holding so, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
3. It is to be noted that concerned persons have already retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
4. Taking note of the fact that resolution of the Board cannot be
questioned, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, more so, in the light of
the fact that the concerned persons have already retired from service on
account of superannuation, the present appeal is not maintainable.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.204 of 2008
5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.V.N., J.] [G.J., J.]
03.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the
Judgment may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate / litigant concerned.
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.204 of 2008
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.204 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014
03.12.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
