Madras High Court
M.Navaneetha Krishnan vs The Panchayat President on 25 February, 2021
W.A(MD)No.170 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.170 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012
M.Navaneetha Krishnan ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
The Panchayat President,
Srimoolakarai Village Panchayat,
Srimoolakarai,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 23.11.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.1057 of 2010
on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Sundaranathan
For Respondent : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar,
Special Government Pleader.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.A(MD)No.170 of 2012
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
The Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.1057 of 2010, dated 23.11.2011.
2.Originally, the said Writ Petition was filed by the appellant/writ
petitioner to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the respondent pertaining to his Order No.1, dated
15.10.2009, suspending the appellant from the post of Panchayat
Assistant and to quash the same and further directing the respondent
to reinstate the petitioner in the above-said post.
3.The appellant/writ petitioner was a Panchayat Assistant, who
was suspended along with the Village President. Instead of filing an
appeal before the District Collector under Section 202 of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the appellant had rushed to this Court.
4.The learned Single Judge had specifically stated that under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the post of Panchayat Clerk is
not a post coming under a constituted service. A Panchayat Clerk do
not have the constitutional protection under Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India and the same has been created in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.175.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.170 of 2012
5.When the powers are already conferred on the District
Collector to suspend or cancel any resolution passed, order issued or
licence or permission granted, it was open to the appellant to go
before the District Collector. Curiously, the appellant had addressed to
the District Collector on 02.08.2010 requesting him to cancel the
order of suspension issued against him. In the meanwhile, on
18.07.2011, the Panchayat Union has resolved to cancel the order of
suspension and permitted the appellant to join duty. On the same day,
the communication was also issued to the appellant informing that the
order of suspension was revoked and he was asked to join duty.
Therefore, the prayer as sought for in the Writ Petition that the order
of suspension has to be revoked, has already been complied with by
the authority. As affirmed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant
has made only the Panchayat President as a party and he has not
even made the District Collector as a party to the proceedings. He is
also not able to say what was happened to the representation given
by him to the District Collector on 02.08.2010. As already the order of
suspension was revoked and directed him to join duty, the prayer
sought for in the Writ Petition has also become infructuous.
6.Though the appellant had complained that he was not allowed
to join duty, inspite of the resolution, he has to work out his remedy in
the manner known to law. A communication from the respondent,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.170 of 2012
dated 22.07.2011 states that as per the resolution that the authorities
had sent a proposal to the District Collector for the transfer of the
appellant. Hence, till such time the order is received from the District
Collector, he will not be allowed to join duty.
7.In the light of the above subsequent events, after filing a Writ
Petition, the appellant has only to follow the procedure and approach
the District Collector for whatever the relief he is seeking. As stated
earlier, the District Collector is not made as a party to the
proceedings, therefore, we are unable to give any direction. The
appellant has to work out his remedy by pursuing the communication,
dated 22.07.2011.
8.In the light of the above, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
25.02.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.170 of 2012
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
The Panchayat President,
Srimoolakarai Village Panchayat,
Srimoolakarai,
Thoothukudi District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.170 of 2012
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
ps
W.A(MD)No.170 of 2012
25.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
