Madras High Court
Thirumalaikumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD).No.1133 of 2021
Thirumalaikumar ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
DMS Compound,
Teynampet,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER:This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to
set aside the order dated 28.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.20593 of 2018
on the file of this Court.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
For Respondents : Mr.R.Bhaskaran
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J)
We have heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr.R.Bhaskaran, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2.This appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the
order, dated 28.09.2018 in W.P.(MD)No.20953 of 2018.
3.The said writ petition was filed by the appellant to consider
his claim for appointment as Driver on regular basis by taking note of
previous experience of seven years, when he worked as a Driver on
contract basis by giving some priority, which have been set out in his
representation, dated 04.06.2018. The learned Single Bench noted that
on the date when the writ petition was filed, the appellant was 47 years
of age. Further, it was observed that the registration in the employment
exchange cannot be a ground to give preference to the appellant, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2021
selection through employment exchange alone is not the mode of
recruitment.
4.It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that several similarly placed persons had approached this Court earlier
in W.P.(MD)No.28761 of 2008, etc, batch, wherein, similar relief was
sought for and the writ petitions were disposed of, by a common order,
dated 04.12.2008, by directing the preference to be given to those
petitioners, who had earlier worked on contract basis as Drivers and the
official respondents were directed to consider their cases accordingly.
It is submitted that similar orders have been passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.
7497 of 2009 and 3568 of 2012. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the
case of State of Tamil Nadu and three others vs. S.Murugan in W.A.
(MD)No.823 of 2013 dated 19.08.2013, had affirmed the orders passed
by the Single Bench, after taking note of the fact that the writ appeal
filed by the Government against the order, dated 04.12.2008 in W.P.
(MD)No.28761 of 2008, etc, batch, was confirmed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench, by dismissing the appeal filed by the State.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2021
5.Though we agree with the legal principle noted by the
learned Single Bench, yet taking into consideration that the similarly
placed persons as that of the appellant were given certain concessions
and some of them have also secured employment, we are inclined to
issue direction to consider the case of the appellant. However, it is to
be noted that as on date, the appellant has crossed 51 years of age. Be
that as it may, we are inclined to issue a direction to consider the case
of the appellant on merits and in accordance with law and reference
may be made to the earlier orders passed in respect of similarly placed
persons, whose case is appeared to have been considered positively by
the respondent.
6.For the above reasons, the writ appeal is allowed and the
orders passed in the writ petition is set aside, giving liberty to the
appellant to file a fresh representation enclosing a copy of this
judgment and earlier orders of the Court and copies of the orders,
where the judgments were implemented and employment given and if
such representation is given, the competent authority shall consider the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2021
same in accordance with law. The above direction be complied with
within a period of three months from the date on which, the
representation is given. No Costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
10.06.2021
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes/No
RM/Mrn
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 Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
DMS Compound,
Teynampet,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI,J.
Mrn/RM
W.A.(MD).No.1133 of 2021
10.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
