Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs R.Alexandar on 16 June, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.248 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD)No.248 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3031 of 2023
The Commissioner,
Madurai City Municipal Corporation,
Aringar Anna Maligai,
Madurai – 625 002. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Alexandar
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply (MCIV) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
3.S.Sekar
4.M.V.Murugesa Pandian ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.4243 of
2020 dated 14.07.2021 on the file of this Court.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.248 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr. K.K.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R1.
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar,
Addl. Government Pleader for R2.
Mr.D.Kirubakaran for R3 & R4.
JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2.The writ petitioner / Alexander was working as Assistant
Engineer in Madurai Corporation. He was promoted to the post of
Assistant Executive Engineer vide proceedings dated 13.11.2014 issued
by the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation. Subsequently, vide Letter
No.6839/MCIV/2015 – 2 dated 16.04.2015, the government directed
cancellation of the panel. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner, Madurai
Corporation issued proceedings dated 23.04.2015 cancelling the
promotion given to the following persons:
“1.Thiru.S.Sekar, Junior Engineer
2.Thiru.R.Alexzandar, Assistant Engineer
3.Thiru.M.P.Manoharan, Assistant Engineer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
4.Thiruu.M.Kamaran, Assistant Engineer,
5.Thiru.Murugesa Pandian, Junior Engineer”
It is relevant to note that the writ petitioner herein is figuring at Serial
No.2 above.
3.The other three persons mentioned above namely, Sekar,
Manoharan and Murugesa Pandian filed W.P.(MD)Nos.7048, 7049 and
7050 of 2015 challenging the cancellation order. The writ petition came
to be allowed on 21.10.2019 in the following terms:
“11.For the above reasons, this Court is unable to sustain
the order passed by the first respondent and the consequential
order passed by the second respondent. Accordingly, these writ
petitions are allowed and the impugned order passed by the first
respondent, dated 16.04.2015 and the consequential order passed
by the second respondent, dated 23.04.2015 are set aside insofar
as it relates to the petitioners. The impugned orders shall be
treated as void insofar it relates to the petitioners' promotion and
unenforceable to affect their promotion. With regard to the other
persons, who have not challenged the impugned orders, it is open
to the respondents to prepare a new panel in accordance with law.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.”
Thereafter, Alexander filed W.P.(MD)No.4243 of 2020 for the very same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
relief which was sought by the other writ petitioners mentioned above.
The writ petition was partly allowed vide order dated 14.07.2021 in the
following terms:
“9.From the above materials, it is seen that the respondents
3 & 4 were vigilant enough to challenge the proceedings of the
first respondent, dated 16.04.2015, and proceedings of the second
respondent, dated 23.04.2015 as early as in the year 2015 itself.
This Court granted relief as prayed for on the facts and
circumstances of the case. The petitioner did not challenge the
seniority panel, dated 13.11.2014, which was cancelled
subsequently by the proceedings, dated 23.04.2015. The
proceedings of the first respondent directing the second
respondent to cancel the panel, dated 13.11.2014, is dated
16.04.2015. For more than 5 years, the petitioner did not
challenge the panel, dated 13.11.2014, for promotion to the post of
Assistant Executive Engineer, wherein, he was placed below the
third respondent. The said panel was cancelled by the proceedings
dated 23.04.2015 as per the direction of the first respondent. The
reason given by the petitioner that he did not challenge the panel,
dated 13.11.2014, as the same was cancelled, is not acceptable
and is without merits. No explanation was given by the petitioner
for not challenging the seniority panel, dated 13.11.2014 in time.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of placing him
above third respondent based on the seniority list, dated
12.01.2007. In the writ petitions filed by the third respondent one
M.P.Manoharan and the fourth respondent in W.P(MD)Nos.7048
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
to 7050 of 2015, this Court, by common order, dated 21.10.2019,
considering the fact that no disciplinary proceeding was pending
against the respondents 3 & 4 and Manoharan, held that
cancellation of entire panel is erroneous. This Court held that the
second respondent ought to have cancelled the panel only with
regard to persons against whom disciplinary proceedings are
pending on the date of panel. On the date of panel, no disciplinary
proceeding was pending against the petitioner. In view of the
same, the reason given in the common order, dated 21.10.2019, is
applicable to the petitioner also.
10.For the above reasons, the proceedings dated
16.04.2015 and 23.04.2015 are quashed in respect of the
petitioner alone. The petitioner is entitled to promotion as per the
panel, dated 13.11.2014.
11.In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
Questioning the same, this writ appeal has been filed by the
Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation.
4.The learned standing counsel for the corporation reiterated all
the contentions set out in the grounds of writ appeal and called upon this
Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner
endeavoured to convince that interference with the order of the learned
Single Judge is not warranted. He pointed out that technically, Sekar and
two others might belong to what is called as diploma stream, they were
far junior to him. He pointed out that the learned Single Judge had only
granted the relief who was granted relief to Sekar and two others.
6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through
the materials on record. A mere look at the writ prayer would show that
Alexander has challenged the proceedings dated 13.11.2014, the
proceedings dated 16.04.2015 and the consequential order dated
23.04.2015. The writ petition came to be filed only in February, 2020.
7.As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the
corporation, Alexander appears to have been a fence-sitter. By virtue of
the orders dated 16.04.2015 and 23.04.2015, the promotion given to
Sekar, Alexander, Kamaraj, Manoharan and Murugesa Pandian were
cancelled. When the three other promotees chose to knock the doors of
this Court, nothing stopped the present writ petitioner / Alexander to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
approach this Court or invoke the writ remedy. He chose to keep quiet.
After noticing that Sekar and two others have succeeded, Alexandar
woke up and filed a fresh writ petition.
8.The learned standing counsel drew our attention to the reported
in 1974 AIR 1974 2271 (P.S.Sadhasivasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) in
support of his contention that in matters relating to seniority and
promotion, challenge must be mounted within a period of six months. In
this case, the challenge was mounted after a gap of close to five years.
Alexander has to be non-suited only on the ground of laches even though
we strongly feel that justice is on his side.
9.The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ
appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,)
16.06.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
To:
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply (MCIV) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
ias
16.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
