Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19244 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 October, 2024
2024:MHC:3531
W.P.No.28905 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.28905 of 2024
C.Rajendran ... Petitioner
vs
1.Union of India
Rep. by is General Manager
Southern Railway
Park Town, Chennai.
2.The Senior Divisional personnel Officer
Salem Division
Southern Railway, Salem. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
relating to the Impugned Order in O.A.No.350 of 2022 dated 02.04.2024
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal quash the same and
further direct the Respondents to appoint the son of the petitioner under
LARSGES Scheme were the petitioner's son is found to fit and eligible for
the consequential post of Track Maintainer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
W.P.No.28905 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.V.V.Sathya
For Respondents: Ms.D.Reshma
for Dr.D.Simon,
Central Government Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J) The petitioner had assailed order dated 30.04.2021 conveying that
the representation of the petitioner for appointment under the LARGESS
Scheme was under scrutiny and consideration before the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal).
2. We may note straight away that order dated 30.04.2021, is bad
in law in light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court
in the case of Manjit and others v. Union of India and another 1.
3.The challenge in the case of Manjith & others related to the
Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for
Safety (LARSGESS) Scheme (in short, 'Scheme'). The Scheme had been
formulated for providing entry into service for wards of serving
employees. The Supreme Court noted that the Scheme enabled the wards
to be brought on board without undergoing competitive selection.
4. The Scheme was hence quashed, as being contrary to the
requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and a
1 AIR 2021 SC 944 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mode of entry through the back door.
5.It appears that based on the aforesaid judgment, the pleas of
other applicants for absorption under the Scheme have also been rejected
by the CAT.
6.In fact, in light of this judgment, the order of the 2nd respondent
to the effect that the application of the petitioner is under consideration is
itself wholly illegal as that order is dated 30.04.2021 whereas the
judgment in the case of Manjit & Others is dated 29.01.2021.
7.In fine, we see no merit in this writ petition and the same is
dismissed. No costs.
[A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J]
03.10.2024
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes
vs
To
1.The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai.
2.The Senior Divisional personnel Officer, Salem Division, Southern Railway, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J
vs
03.10.2024
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!