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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Baskaran, Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 07.12.2019, issued by the respondent – Panchayat Union.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the sixth respondent as Panchayat Secretary in the fifth respondent – Panchayat.

3. Even though the grievance of the petitioner is only against the sixth respondent, the impugned order dated 07.12.2019 does not refer to the sixth respondent. The impugned order only gives the details of the number of applicants, number of participants and number of absentees in the selection process. Only pursuant to the aforementioned selection process, the sixth respondent was appointed as Panchayat Secretary. The appointment order issued in favour of the sixth respondent has not been challenged. The petitioner has challenged the mere communication addressed to a person, by name, D.Sethu, dated 07.12.2019, who is not a party to this writ petition. When the petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the sixth respondent as Panchayat Secretary, he ought to have challenged his appointment order.

The petitioner is also not having the benefit of any interim order from this Court even though this writ petition was fi

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