R. Kandasamy vs Commissioner & Special Commissioner, HR & CE Department as Governing Council Chairman of A. P. Polytechnic, Palani

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(Mad) 3450

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, V.M.VELUMANI
R. Kandasamy – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner & Special Commissioner, HR & CE Department as Governing Council Chairman of A. P. Polytechnic, Palani – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. J. Anandavalli for Mrs. J. Nisha Banu, Mr. V. Panneer Selvam, Mr. K. Srinivasan, for Mr. M.P. Senthil, Mr. C. Selvaraj, for Mr. S. Mani.
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Govindan, Mr. M. Alagudevan, for Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, Mr. Venkatachalapathy, for Mr. D. Rajendran and Mr. V. Devaraj.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, there is no indication that the case was taken to the Supreme Court. The document details proceedings and judgments from the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) and includes references to various writ petitions and appeals within the High Court system, such as writ appeals (W.A.) and writ petitions (W.P.), but there is no mention of an appeal being filed or pending before the Supreme Court of India (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT :

Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, J.

W.P. (MD) No. 9860 of 2007.

The petitioner in this writ petition rendered temporary service from 1.7.1986 to 30.4.1987 in the Arulmighu Palaniandavar Polytechnic. Later, he rendered temporary service in another polytechnic from 8.6.1987 to 8.6.1988. Thereafter, he was appointed as Instructor (Structural Engineering) with effect from 16.6.1988 in the fourth respondent polytechnic.

2. As per the orders passed in WP. No. 26611 of 1997 dated 20.11.1998, the writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer with effect from 19.8.1989, after creation of a supernumerary post with retrospective effect. This post was upgraded as Senior Lecturer. The fifth respondent in the writ petition was directly appointed as Lecturer on 30.12.1989. Since the petitioner was promoted as Lecturer only after his success in the writ petition in 1998 with retrospective effect from 19.8.1989, the petitioner claimed seniority. The petitioner was treated as senior to the fifth respondent and was posted as Head of the Department In-Charge. The petitioner was not posted on a regular basis as Head of the Department. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(Mad) 3450

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, V.M.VELUMANIR. Kandasamy – AppellantVersusCommissioner & Special Commissioner, HR & CE Department as Governing Council Chairman of A. P. Polytechnic, Palani – Respondent

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, V.M.VELUMANI
R. Kandasamy – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner & Special Commissioner, HR & CE Department as Governing Council Chairman of A. P. Polytechnic, Palani – Respondent