Madras High Court
The Director Of Medical And Rural Health ... vs S.Ponnivalavan on 6 October, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 2842 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.10.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 2842 of 2025
and
CMP.No. 22991 of 2025
1. The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services
Chennai – 600008
2. The Joint Director of Health Services,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Superintendent
Govt. District Head Quarters Hospital,
Nagapattinam. ..Appellants
Vs
S.Ponnivalavan ...Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 19.03.2024 passed in W.P.No. 18849 of 2018.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:36:47 pm )
W.A No. 2842 of 2025
For Appellants: Mr. M.Bindran, AGP
For Respondent : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 19.03.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18849 of 2018. By the said
order, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination dated
14.05.2001 passed by the second respondent and directed the appellants herein
to regularise the services of the writ petitioner/respondent, together with all
consequential service and monetary benefits from the date of his appointment.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:
2.1 The writ petitioner/respondent was appointed as Pharmacist in the
year 2001. By proceedings dated 14.05.2001, his services were terminated.
Aggrieved thereby, he approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai, by filing O.A. No. 3394 of 2001. The Tribunal granted interim orders
on 22.05.2001 and 21.06.2001, pursuant to which the writ petitioner/respondent
was permitted to rejoin duty and continued in service. Subsequently, upon the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:36:47 pm )
abolition of the Administrative Tribunal, the case stood transferred to this
Court. However, it is the grievance of the writ petitioner/respondent that he was
not informed about the transfer of his case. Despite making several
representations, the case bundle could not be traced. Consequently, he filed the
aforesaid writ petition challenging the termination order dated 14.05.2001.
2.2 The learned Single Judge, upon consideration, found that the
termination of the writ petitioner/respondent was effected without issuing any
notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the settled
principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge also observed that the
writ petitioner/respondent was duly qualified and eligible for appointment to the
post of Pharmacist and that he had rendered about 23 years of service without
any blemish. On these findings, the learned Single Judge directed regularisation
of his services with all consequential benefits.
3. Mr. M. Bindran, learned Additional Government Pleader for the
appellants, submitted that the initial appointment of the writ
petitioner/respondent was irregular. It was contended that while making his
appointment, the claims of his seniors in the Employment Exchange register
were overlooked and the rule of communal reservation was not followed. On
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:36:47 pm )
that basis, it was urged that the termination of the writ petitioner/respondent was
fully justified, and consequently, he is not entitled to any relief of regularisation.
4. Per contra, Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner/respondent, submitted that the appointment of the writ petitioner was
in accordance with law. He argued that the learned Single Judge, after properly
appreciating the materials available on record and considering the long and
blemish-free service of the writ petitioner/respondent, rightly allowed the writ
petition.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
on either side and perused the records placed before us.
\
6. It is not disputed that the writ petitioner/respondent was appointed as
Pharmacist in the year 2001 pursuant to a list sponsored by the Employment
Exchange. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner/respondent possessed
the requisite qualifications for appointment to the said post. The reason assigned
for the termination of his services was that the appointment had been made by
overlooking seniors registered with the District Employment Exchange. It is
also on record that disciplinary action was taken against the officers concerned
who were involved in the said irregularities, and they were imposed with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:36:47 pm )
punishment of compulsory retirement. However, it is significant to note that the
writ petitioner/respondent himself was never served with any notice nor was he
given an opportunity to show cause before the impugned termination order
dated 14.05.2001 was passed.
7. The learned Single Judge, after considering these aspects, rightly came
to the conclusion that the termination order was violative of the principles of
natural justice. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge took into account that the
writ petitioner/respondent, by virtue of the interim orders passed by the Tamil
Nadu Administrative Tribunal, had continued in service without interruption
since 2001, and as on date, had completed more than two decades of blemish-
free service. On these considerations, the learned Single Judge set aside the
termination order and directed regularisation of his services.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:36:47 pm )
8. We are in full agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge.
The termination of the writ petitioner/respondent’s services without affording an
opportunity of hearing is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. In
addition, the fact that the writ petitioner/respondent has continuously discharged
his duties as a Pharmacist for over 23 years without any adverse record,
reinforces the justification for the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We,
therefore, find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting
interference by this Court in intra-Court appeal jurisdiction.
9. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs. The Appellant/State is granted two (2) months time from today
to implement the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
06.10.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:36:47 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
06.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:36:47 pm )
