Madras High Court
A.Thalavai Muthu vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 June, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.No.1610 of 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDER
W.A.No.1610 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.12041 of 2025
A.Thalavai Muthu ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Labour and Employment Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Employment and Training,
Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3.The Assistant Director,
Professional and Executive
Employment Exchange,
Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
4.The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
(Formerly TNEB),
Rep. by its Chairman,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:53 pm )
W.A.No.1610 of 2025
5.The Chief Engineer/ Personnel,
The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
8th Flor, No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
6.The Assistant Director,
Professional and Executive,
Employment Office,
Madurai Branch,
Madurai Government ITI Complex,
K.Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set
aside the order dated 07.02.2025 made in W.P.No.6795 of 2015.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Malaichamy
For Respondent : Mr.P.Ananda Kumar,
Government Advocate
*******
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge is to the order made in W.P.No.6795 of 2015 dated
07.02.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:53 pm )
2. The petitioner sought for a Mandamus directing the respondents
to pay a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-, for the alleged failure in
sponsoring the name of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Engineer in
the Electricity Board in the years 2005 and 2007. The Writ Petition was
filed in the year 2015. Earlier when the petitioner was not sponsored in the
year 2007, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.24914 of 2010. This Court by
order dated 31.01.2011 directed the respondents to sponsor his name based
on the earlier registration dated 28.01.1993, liberty was also granted to the
petitioner to workout his remedy for the failure to sponsor his name earlier.
3. The petitioner did not take any action on the basis of the liberty
granted. Subsequently, the name of the petitioner was sponsored for the
very same post in the year 2012. Though the petitioner appeared for the
interview he was un-successful. When another recruitment was made in the
year 2014, the petitioner’s name was not sponsored for want of vacancies in
the quota in which the petitioner was registered. After knowing that he was
not sponsored in the year 2014, the petitioner has come up with the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:53 pm )
Writ Petition seeking damages for the failure to sponsor during the years
2005 and 2007.
4. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition
mainly on the ground of latches and on a finding that there was no
negligence on the part of the Authorities.
5. Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents there is an admission that the appellant’s name was not
sponsored on earlier occasions due to a mistake.
6. That by itself, in our considered opinion, will not afford a
ground for the appellant to seek compensation. The earlier non-sponsoring
was addressed by this Court in the order dated 31.01.2011 made in
W.P.No.24914 of 2010. Though a liberty was granted to the petitioner to
workout his remedies in the manner known to law, the petitioner was happy
with the fact that his name was sponsored in the subsequent selection.
Having failed to make in the subsequent selection, the petitioner now
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:53 pm )
attempts to take advantage of the failure to sponsor in 2005 and 2007.
7. We do not think we can entertain such a plea. The learned
Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, we do not find
any reason to interfere with the orders of the writ Court. The Writ Appeal
fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (K.S.,J.)
dsa 20.06.2025
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : No
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:53 pm )
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Labour and Employment Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Employment and Training,
Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3.The Assistant Director,
Professional and Executive
Employment Exchange,
Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
4.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
(Formerly TNEB),
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
5.The Chief Engineer/ Personnel,
The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
8th Flor, No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
6.The Assistant Director,
Professional and Executive,
Employment Office,
Madurai Branch,
Madurai Government ITI Complex,
K.Pudur, Madurai – 625 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:53 pm )
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.SURENDER, J.
dsa
20.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:53 pm )
