Madras High Court
N.Selvaraj vs The Commissioner on 10 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)NOs.759 to 764 OF 2012
1.N.Selvaraj
2.A.Rathinavel
3.P.Gunaian
4.P.Ganesan
5.G.Kalaiselvan
6.R.Rasukannu
7.S.Ashok Kumar
8.V.Veeramani
9.S.Prakash
10.M.Kumar
11.B.Prabakaran
12.P.Ananthakumar
13.J.Kaliamurthy
14.B.Ganesan
15.R.Jeyaraman
16.S.Periyannan
17.A.Muthumalai
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
18.M.Karthikeyan
19.P.Ravichandran
20.K.Natarajan :Appellants/Petitioners in
W.A(MD)No.759 of 2012
.vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Arulmighu Mariamman Temple,
Samayapuram,
Trichy District. : Respondents/Respondents in
W.A(MD)No.759 of 2012
3.M.Gopinath
4.P.Suresh Kumar :Respondents/Petitioners
W.A(MD)No.759 of 2012
PRAYER in W.A(MD)No.759 of 2012: Writ Appeal filed under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying this Court to set aside the
order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.7744 of 2011, dated
27.6.2012.
For Appellant :Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi
in all W.As'
For Respondent-1 :Mr.R.Govindarajan
in all W.As'
For Respondent-2 :Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
in all W.As' Special Govt.Pleader
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
COMMON JUDGMENT
***********************
[Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]
These Writ Appeals are directed against the order passed by
this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.7744 to 7748 and 9490 of 2011, dated
dated 27.6.2012.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.Already this Court, in similar matters, in W.A(MD)Nos.94
and 95 of 2014, passed orders on 26.04.2017, dismissing the Writ
Appeals, in which, the operative portion reads as under:
''4.The above said Writ Petitions were
dismissed on the ground that unless the termination
is declared as illegal, a direction cannot be given for
restoration of the appellants in service. Furthermore,
the respondents 1 and 2 took a specific stand that
without calling for applications from the Employment
Exchange and without any advertisement and
without conducting interview, the appellants claimed
to have been appointed and such appointment is
wholly illegal. Thus, we are in entire agreement with
the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, in
W.P(MD)Nos.7744 to 7748 and 9490 of 2011.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
Accordingly, the impugned order does not call for any
interference by us. Hence theseWrit Appeals are
dismissed. No costs.''
4.In view of the above order, as the prayer in all the above
Writ Petitions are one and the same, following the same, these Writ
Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
[P.S.N.,J.] & [S.K.,J.]
10.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Arulmighu Mariamman Temple,
Samayapuram,
Trichy District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA J.
AND
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
vsn
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NOs.759 to
764 OF 2012
10.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
