[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M.Ilango vs Election Commission Of India on 16 March, 2026
W.P.No.9985 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.03.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
WP No.9985 of 2026
M.Ilango
S/o.Mahalingam
Res. at No.23,Mariyamman Koil Street West
Pandasozhanur, Nettapakkam, Bahour Taluk,
Puducherry-605 106.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Election Commission of India
Rep by its Chief Election Commissioner
Nirvachan sadan, Ashoka Road
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The State Election Commission
Rep by Chief Election Officer
Having address at 1st Floor,
New Collectorate Building
Vazhudavour Road, Pettaiyanchhatiram
Puducherry-605 009.
3. The Director General of Police
2, Dumas street, White town
Puducherry-605 001.
______________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 08:12:44 pm )
W.P.No.9985 of 2026
4. Union of India
Rep by its Chief Secretary
Government of Puducherry
Puducherry-605 001.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent
not to reject the nomination of the petitioner to contest the upcoming
2026 Puducherry Legislative Assembly election solely on the ground of
alleged continuance in government service.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.V.Muthu Kumar
For Respondent(s):Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
Standing Counsel
for R1
Mr.V.Vasanthakumar
Additional Government Pleader
(Puducherry)
for R2 and R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a
writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent not to reject the
nomination of the petitioner to contest the upcoming 2026 Puducherry
Legislative Assembly election solely on the ground of his alleged
continuance in government service.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 08:12:44 pm )
2. For consideration of the claim raised in this writ petition, few
vital facts need to be referred to:
(a) Even though an application was submitted by the
petitioner on 27.8.2025 opting for voluntary retirement
from service, the same was rejected vide order dated
19.12.2025 owing to pendency of departmental
proceedings against the petitioner.
(b) The third respondent, vide order dated 2.2.2026,
treated the petitioner as “Deserter” with effect from
18.10.2025, because to his unauthorised absence from
duty.
(c) The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
petitioner ended in imposition of penalty of “Censure”,
vide order dated 6.2.2026 passed by the Special
Officer, Police Department, Puducherry.
3. Another vital aspect which needs to be alluded to is that the
petitioner challenging the order dated 19.12.2025 rejecting his request
for VRS has filed O.A.No.310/00014/2026 before the Central
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 08:12:44 pm )
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, and the same was disposed of
vide order dated 4.3.2026 with the following direction:
“6. In view of the above, we are of the view that all the
aforesaid actions of the respondents are consequential
to each other. Therefore, having regard to the closure
of the disciplinary proceeding with the penalty of
censure, we deem it appropriate to direct the
respondents to consider and dispose of the application
of applicant for Voluntary Retirement submitted on
27.8.2025 by reviewing the order dated 02.02.2026
issued by the respondents taking into account the
medical leave submitted by the applicant and to pass a
reasoned and speaking order thereon within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.”
4. From a bare perusal of the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, it is apparent that the respondents therein
were only directed to consider the application of the petitioner for
voluntary retirement within four weeks. It is for the authorities to take
a decision one way or the other. The fact remains that the petitioner,
as on date, continues to be a government servant.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 08:12:44 pm )
5. Moreover, this Court cannot presume that the respondent/
employer would certainly accept the application seeking VRS
submitted by the petitioner so to direct the first respondent not to
reject the nomination of the petitioner to contest in the ensuing
elections. If the petitioner is qualified as on the date of nomination,
the competent authority may consider his candidature. We express
no opinion.
Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
16.03.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 08:12:44 pm )
To:
1. The Chief Election Commissioner
Election Commission of India
Nirvachan sadan, Ashoka Road
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Election Officer
State Election Commission
Having address at 1st Floor,
New Collectorate Building
Vazhudavour Road, Pettaiyanchhatiram
Puducherry-605 009.
3. The Director General of Police
2, Dumas street, White town
Puducherry-605 001.
4. The Chief Secretary
Union of India
Government of Puducherry
Puducherry-605 001.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 08:12:44 pm )
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
16.03.2026
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 08:12:44 pm )
