Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs M.V.Kannan on 17 November, 2021
W.A(MD)No.279 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.A(MD)No.279 of 2013
The Commissioner,
Vickramasingapuram Municipality,
Vickramasingapuram,
Tirunelveli District. ... Appellant / Respondent
Vs.
M.V.Kannan ... Respondent / Petitioner
PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act,
against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.6723 of 2010, dated
04.01.2013.
For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondent : No Appearance
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.279 of 2013
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
The Writ Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the
Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.6723 of 2010, dated
04.01.2013, wherein, this Court has directed the writ petitioner to be
appointed as an Office Assistant-cum-Cleaner.
2. The Respondent / Petitioner is a resident of Ambalavanapuram
Village in Tirunelveli District. The Appellant / Respondent is a Municipality
governed by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
3. The Appellant / Respondent Municipality had two vacancies for the
post of Office Assistant cum Cleaner in the Drinking Water Scheme. The
vacancies were notified to the local Employment Exchange, which duly
forwarded the names of the qualified candidates, based on the employment
seniority. The name of the petitioner and one Ramesh were also sponsored
for the said post. The said Ramesh has been selected and appointed as
Office Assistant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.279 of 2013
4. According to the Respondent / Petitioner, yet another vacancy has
got to be filled up and that he being a physically challenged person, is
entitled to be appointed on preference, in terms of provision of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995.
5. According to the Appellant / Respondent, the post of Office
Assistant and Cleaner in the Drinking Water Scheme are independent posts
and the said Ramesh has been appointed as an Office Assistant and the
Writ Petitioner was not selected. That apart, the Writ Petitioner has
applied to the post of Cleaner. Due to the disability of the writ petitioner,
the writ petitioner was not found eligible for the post of cleaner, since the
nature of work is to clean the water tank and over head tank, which cannot
be done by the writ petitioner, due to his disability. According to the
appellant / respondent, the said Ramesh has not been made as party to the
proceedings.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
and perused the materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.279 of 2013
7. The Learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis that the
Office Assistant-cum-Cleaner, in the Drinking Water Scheme, as one post
and that one vacancy exist and in terms of the provisions of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 Act, the case of the writ petitioner to be
considered and directed to be appointed.
8. Earlier, during the course of the argument, it is submitted by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein, who is the respondent
in the writ petition that the writ petitioner has secured a job elsewhere and
the statement was made across the bar by the counsel appearing for the
writ petitioner and that a memo would be filed in the next hearing.
9. But today, when the matter is called there is no representation for
the writ petitioner / respondent.
10. Taking note of the fact that for the post of cleaner, the writ
petitioner is not eligible, as it requires physical fitness to discharge the
duties, attached to the said post, we are of the view that the order of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.279 of 2013
Learned Single Judge, appointing the petitioner in the said post, cannot be
sustained. That apart, one Ramesh, who has already been selected and
appointed as Office Assistant, has not been made as party to the
proceedings. Hence, we are of the view that the order of the Learned
Single Judge passed in W.P.(MD)No.6723 of 2010, dated 04.01.2013, is
liable to be set aside.
11. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed by
this Court in W.P.(MD)No.6723 of 2010, dated 04.01.2013, is set aside. No
costs.
[S.V.N.,J.] [G.J.,J.]
17.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MPK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.279 of 2013
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
MPK
ORDER MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.279 of 2013
17.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
