SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Mad) 101

RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR
N. Devasahayam – Appellant
Versus
State of Madras, by Secretary, Home Department – Respondent


Advocates:
R. M. Seshadri, R. Subramaniam and P. S. Bashyam, for Petitioner in W. P. No. 487 of 1956 and S. MohanKumaramangalam, for Respondents 2 to 5.
K. V. Venkatasubramania Ayyar and G. R. Jagadisan, for Petitioner in W. P. No. 1131 of 1956 and M. K. Nambiar, S. Mohan Kumaramangalam and K. K. Venugopal, for Respondents 2 to 7.
M.K. Nambiar, S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, K. V. Sankaran, K. K. Venugopal, S Palaniswami and S. Sethurathnam, for Petitioner in W. P. Nos, 1353 and 1354 of 1956 and G. R. Jagadisan, for 1st Respondent.
The Advocate-General (V. K. Thiruvenkatachari) and the Special Government Pleader (V. V. Raghavan) in W. P. Nos. 487, 1131, 1353 and 1354 of 1956, for the State, in all the Petitions.

Order

These petitions raise for consideration very difficult questions as to the construction of several orders of Government in relation to the constitution of the judicial service in this State subsequent to the coming into force of the Constitution and the validity of the orders issued by the State Government relating to the seniority among the classes of officers constituting that service.

The petitioner in W.P. No. 1131 of 1956 is a Judicial District Magistrate who challenges an order passed by the Government in May, 1956, altering to his prejudice the seniority accorded to him by orders of Government issued in 1951 and confirmed by them in 1954. W. P. Nos. 1353 and 1354 of 1956 have been filed by the officers Who have been benefited by the order impugned in W.P. No 1131 of 1956 and these seek to question the validity of the appointment of the petitioner and of another Judicial District Magistrate situated like him by the issue of writs of quo warranto.

Logically therefore the matters set out in W.P. Nos. 1353 of 1956 and 1354 of 1956 have to be considered first since if the challenge to the validity of the appointment of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1131 of 1956 succeeded, the ear

























































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top