Madras High Court
Hajee. K.E. Mudhammad Ismayil vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 March, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
WP(MD). No.20455 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 06/03/2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
WP(MD)No.20455 of 2023
Hajee. K.E. Mudhammad Ismayil ... Petitioner
v.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
The Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
State Secretariat,
St.George Fort,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC)
No.293, M.K.N.Road,
Alandur,
Chennai 600 016..
3. The Director,
Office of the Director of Municipal Administration,
M.R.C.Nagar, Santhom Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai 28.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
WP(MD). No.20455 of 2023
4. The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Aringar Anna Maligai,
Madurai 625 002.
5. The Deputy Commissioner / Vigilance Officer
Cum Enquiry Officer,
Madurai Corporation,
Aringar Anna Maligai,
Madurai 625 002.
6. Sivapackiam.R,
Law Officer,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai 625 002.
7. Selvakumar.V,
Superintendent,
Madurai Corporation Zone No.4,
Madurai 625 002.
8. Balasubramanian.V,
Account Officer,
Madurai Corporation Zone No.3,
Madurai 625 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct
the respondent No.5 to complete the enquiry and take action on
the basis of the petitioner representation dated 01.06.2022
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
WP(MD). No.20455 of 2023
forwarded by the respondent No.3 through communication letter
no. 10814/2022 MCA-1 dated 25.07.2022 within the time stipulated
by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok for R1 to R3
Additional Government Pleader
Mr.S.Vinayak for R4&R5
Mr.K.Govindarajan for R6
for Mr.T.Antony Arulraj
Mr.S.Paul Murugesh for R8
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to
direct the respondent No.5 to complete the enquiry and take action
on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 01.06.2022
forwarded by the respondent No.3 through communication letter
No.10814/2022 MCA-1 dated 25.07.2022 within a time frame.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
state that originally, the 6th respondent/Tmt.Sivapackiam was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
appointed as a Female Nursing Orderly in the Public Health
Department of the Madurai Corporation in 1993. Later, she
resigned the said post in 1994 and joined as Typist in the General
Service Department of the Madurai Corporation. Thereafter, she
was promoted as Assistant and then Superintendent. Pursuant to
creation of the post of Law Officer vide G.O.No.76, Municipal
Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.05.1998,
she was appointed as Law Officer on 12.01.2015. He would
further state that the 6th respondent has completed LLB three years
degree course from Al Ameen Law College at Bangalore,
Karnataka State from 1997 to 2000, without attending the college
regularly and without even obtaining permission from his
employer namely, Madurai Corporation and therefore she is not
entitled to hold the post of Law Officer. Hence, the petitioner has
filed this writ petition for the abovesaid relief.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent
would state that the present writ petition is the fourth round of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
litigation filed by the petitioner herein and despite unsuccessful
attempts on thrice before this Court by filing W.P(MD)Nos.20251
of 2015, 4095 of 2019 and 15881 of 2021, the present writ petition
has been filed. In the first writ petition namely, W.P(MD)No.
20251 of 2015, the Madurai Corporation has filed counter stating
that though the 6th respondent acquired LLB without getting
permission, it was condoned and ratified by the Corporation and
considering the fact that thereafter, the 6th respondent acquired
MCA and LLM after obtaining permission from the Corporation,
she was appointed as Law Officer. The Writ Court also referring
to the service rules of the Corporation, held that the candidate who
is having law degree or equivalent degree would be eligible for
appointment as Law Officer and there is no mention in the service
rules that the candidate should have possessed law degree by
regular course. Accordingly, the Writ Court dismissed the first
writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
4. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent further
submitted that the second writ petition namely, W.P(MD)No.4095
of 2019 filed on the same prayer, was dismissed by the Division
Bench, holding that it would amount to reviewing the earlier
decision of the Division Bench. The third writ petition namely,
W.P(MD)No.15881 of 2021 was filed by the very same writ
petitioner herein, seeking issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto
challenging the appointment of the 6th respondent herein as Law
Officer and the Writ Court citing the orders passed in the earlier
two writ petitions, dismissed the third writ petition. However, the
very same person has now filed the present writ petition with
different wordings of prayer seeking Mandamus. Thus, the
learned counsel submits that the present writ petition is clearly an
abuse of process of law and the writ petitioner is making mockery
of the earlier three orders passed by this Court. Hence, the learned
counsel for the 6th respondent submits that the present writ
petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned standing counsel for the
4th respondent / Madurai Corporation have reiterated the grounds
raised in the earlier three litigations justifying the appointment of
the 6th respondent as Law Officer and prayed for dismissal of the
writ petition.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the 6th respondent has completed LLB three years
degree course without attending the college regularly and without
obtaining permission from the Madurai Corporation and therefore
she is not entitled to hold the post of Law Officer, it is the specific
averment of the Madurai Corporation in their counter filed in the
first writ petition namely, W.P(MD)No.20251 of 2015 that the LLB
degree acquired by the 6th respondent without permission, was
condoned by the Corporation and considering the fact that after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
acquiring LLB, she had acquired MCA and LLM by obtaining
permission from the Corporation and she had an impeccable
record of service and that there was no eligible candidate available
in the feeder category to hold the post of Law Officer except the 6th
respondent, the Madurai Corporation had appointed the 6th
respondent as Law Officer. Therefore, the said contention of the
petitioner regarding not obtaining prior permission for LLB course
is rejected. As far as the qualification to hold the post of Law
Officer in the Madurai Corporation, the Writ Court in its order
dated 09.07.2017 passed in first writ petition namely,
W.P(MD)No20251 of 2025 filed by one S.Muthukumar, in which,
one of us (J.NISHA BANU, J) was a party, has held as follows:
''12. The appointment of the fifth respondent is under
challenge primarily on the ground that the candidate ought to
have taken the Law Degree by undergoing regular course. The
petitioner would be correct in his contention, in case there is a
stipulation in the Service Rules that for promotion, the
candidate must have have a degree in Law, enabling her to
practise the profession of Law However, that is not the rule
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
framed for appointment to the post of Law Officer in Madurai
Corporation. The qualification very clearly indicates that the
candidate must have a degree in Law or equivalent degree,
meaning thereby, even a degree holder possessing equivalent
degree would be eligible for appointment to the post of Law
Officer. There is no mention anywhere that the
candidate must have studied the Law Degree by
undergoing a regular course and that he should be
entitled to practise the profession of Law In the absence
of any such stipulation, the petitioner cannot be heard
to say that the fifth respondent was not eligible for
appointment to the post of Law Officer.
13. The fifth respondent satisfied the eligibility criteria
and as such, she was rightly appointed by the Madurai
Corporation. We do not find any ground made out by the
petitioner for issuing a writ and more particularly, a Writ of
Quo Warranto.''
8. The second writ petition namely, W.P(MD)No.4095 of
2019 was filed by one K.Karmegam, seeking to declare the law
degree obtained by the 6th respondent herein as void and illegal.
The Division Bench by order dated 11.11.2019, dismissed the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
petition, holding that it would amount to reviewing the earlier
order of the Division Bench. The relevant passage of the said
judgment is extracted hereunder:
''5. The contentions advanced in the said writ petition is
identical to that of what has been advanced before us on the
ground that she could not have secured a full time LLB degree
from a College in Karnataka, when she was full time employee
of the Madurai Municipal Corporation. The Division Bench
heard the matter and after elaborate discussion had dismissed
the writ petition, vide order dated 09.08.2017 and declined to
issue a Writ of Quo Warranto.
7. In the light of the comprehensive adjudication done by
this Court in the earlier writ petition, which was a substantive
litigation as a Writ of Quo Warranto was sought for and the
Court having considered the submissions has dismissed the
writ petition, we cannot on the same set of facts, which slightly
differently worded prayer re-examine the matter, as it would
amount to reviewing the earlier decision of the Division Bench.
Hence, for that reason alone, the writ petition fails and the
same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. ''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
9. The third writ petition was filed by the present
petitioner in the year 2022 vide W.P(MD)No.15881 of 2021, seeking
issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto challenging the appointment of
the 6th respondent herein and this Court by order dated 21.07.2022,
relying upon the earlier orders, dismissed the writ petition.
10. Reverting to the present case on hand, it is the second
writ petition filed by the petitioner herein on the same cause of
action, but differently worded. It is well settled that the second
writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable as it is
an abuse of process of the Court. Though the question of
eligibility of the 6th respondent to hold the post of Law Officer was
categorically answered by this Court way back in 2017 itself, by
different wording of prayer, subsequent writ petitions were filed
on the same set of facts. The said writ petitions were rightly
dismissed by the Co-ordinate Division Benches affirming the
appointment of the 6th respondent. We strongly deprecate the
practice of filing writ petitions one after another on the same cause
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
of action. Thus, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
with costs.
11. When we expressed our displeasure, the learned
counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to
withdraw the writ petition. We see that the attitude of the
petitioner filing petition one after another does not reflect bona
fide. However, we allow the petitioner to withdraw this writ
petition with a severe warning that in future, if such kind of writ
petition is filed by the petitioner herein, heavy costs will be
imposed on him.
12. With the above observation and warning, the writ
petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
[J.N.B.,J] [S.S.Y.,J]
06.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
BALA/RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
St.George Fort, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC)
No.293, M.K.N.Road, Alandur, Chennai 600 016..
3. The Director,
Office of the Director of Municipal Administration,
M.R.C.Nagar, Santhom Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 28.
5. The Deputy Commissioner / Vigilance Officer
Cum Enquiry Officer,
Madurai Corporation,Aringar Anna Maligai,
Madurai 625 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
BALA/RR
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 06/03/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:00:17 pm )
