Madras High Court
B.Muthuramalingam vs The Secretary on 28 April, 2022
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)Nos. 399 of 2022
B.Muthuramalingam .. Appellant
Vs
The Secretary,
The Government of India,
Ministry of Personnal, Public Grievances and Pension,
Department of Personnel and Training,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the common order dated 15.03.2022 recorded on W.P.(MD)
No. 11534 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Anand
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order
dated 15 March 2022 recorded on W.P.(MD) No.11534 of 2021. This
appeal is by the writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2022
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted
that the petitioner had merely asked for direction to the sole
respondent to consider the representation pertaining to re-fixation
of cadre strength of I.A.S. in the State of Tamil Nadu, which ought
to have been considered favourably. It is submitted that the
dismissal of the writ petition is erroneous and therefore this appeal
be entertained.
3. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant
and having considered the material on record we find that, the very
grievance of the appellant pertains to cadre strength of I.A.S. in the
State of Tamil Nadu. Though the nomenclature I.A.S. indicates
Indian Administrative Service it is always attached with respective
State Governments and in the present case it would be the State of
Tamil Nadu. Therefore, not only the authorities of Government of
India are required to be heard on the point, which the petitioner
joined as sole respondent, the Chief Secretary of the State of Tamil
Nadu is also equally necessary party and without his say the petition
could not have been even taken up for consideration on merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2022
4. We find that, learned Single Judge has
independent of this aspect found that the appellant not entitled for
the relief. We do not find any error in the dismissal of the writ
petition. According to us, the petition suffers vice of non-joinder of
necessary party as well. We find that the dismissal of the writ
petition need not be interfered with.
5. While dismissing this appeal, we make it clear
that the dismissal of the writ petition and this appeal would not be
treated as a factor against writ the petitioner, if otherwise he is
entitled to be considered for being nominated in the cadre of I.A.S.
6. This Writ Appeal is dismissed, with above
observations. No costs.
[P.U., J] [R.V., J]
28.04.2022
Index : No
sj/21
To
The Secretary,
The Government of India,
Ministry of Personnal, Public Grievances and Pension,
Department of Personnel and Training,
New Delhi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
sj
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2022
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
