Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7786 Mad
Judgement Date : 17 April, 2024
WA(MD). No.678 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 17/04/2024
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SESHASAYEE
and
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.VADAMALAI
WA(MD). No.678 of 2018 and
CMP(MD) No.3828 of 2018
1.The Commissioner,
Office of the Welfare of the Differently abled,
Chennai 78
2.The District Collector
Sivagangai District
Sivagangai
3.The District Welfare Officer of the differently abled,
Office of the Welfare of the differently abled,
Sivagangai District
Sivagangai ... Appellants
Vs
S.Satheeshkumar ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 06.03.2018 in WP(MD) No.4686/2018.
For Appellants : M/s.A.Baskaran
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.P.R.Boomirajan
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD). No.678 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SESHASAYEE, J.)
The respondent herein was employed as a driver on temporary basis in
the office of the 3rd respondent and he was terminated from service.
Therefore, he applied to the third respondent for his reinstatement and
that came to be rejected by the third respondent vide proceedings dated
06.02.2018. This came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge
in WP(MD) No.4686/2018.
2. The learned Single Judge appeared to have considered the situation as
one involving a summary termination of a temporary employee and
proceeded to hold that he is entitled to procedural fairness even if he is to
be terminated. This order of the learned Single Judge is now under
challenge.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that all that the
petitioner sought was his reinstatement even while he admitted that he
was only temporarily appointed and this prayer of the respondent was
rejected. However, the learned Single Judge appeared to have equated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the situation as one involving summary termination of the respondent.
There is an error apparently on the face of the record since the line of
reasonings of the learned Judge does not match the issue before him.
4. Turning to the merits of the case, a temporary employee does not have
any vested right to seek his appointment. Necessarily he cannot be
granted any remedy. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(N.S.S.,J.) (P.V.M.,J.) 17.04.2024
RR TO
1.The Commissioner, Office of the Welfare of the Differently abled, Chennai 78
2.The District Collector Sivagangai District Sivagangai
3.The District Welfare Officer of the differently abled, Office of the Welfare of the differently abled, Sivagangai District Sivagangai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
and P.VADAMALAI, J.
RR
17.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!