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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 10584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
Irusappan – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Puducherry – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 27.01.2026 Delivered on : 16.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P.No.28125 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

1. Irusappan S/o.Rajagopal

2. G.Sampath S/o.Govindaraj

3. D.Varadhan S/o.Dhanapal

4. S.Devadoss S/o.Soosai

5. Krishnan S/o.Arjunan

6. T.Gajendran S/o.Thangavelu

7. Narayanasamy S/o.Arunachalam

8. P.Venkatesa Perumal S/o.Pushpam

9. Sadatharan S/o.Manjini

10. Elango S/o.Pakkiri ... Petitioners Vs

1. Union Territory of Puducherry Rep. by its Under Secretary to the Department Local Administration Department Puducherry.

2. The Director Local Administration Department Puducherry.

3. The Commissioner Puducherry Municipality Puducherry.

4. P.Kezendirane S/o.Vinayagam

5. K.Balabaskaran S/o.Kalivarathan

6. R.Vijaya D/o.Rajasegaran

7. V.Nalina D/o.Venni Tandabany

8. S.Soubalatchoamy D/o.Sundaramoorthy

9. V.Rajendiran S/o.Vinayagam

10. S.Jayanthy W/o.Balabaskaran

11. S.Arikrishnan S/o. Singaravelu

12. A.Bathmavady D/o.Archunan

13. M.Ravichandiran S/o.Mahalingam

14. D.Govindan S/o.Dhandapani

15. DJ.Tayanayaguy D/o.Janbarthanan

16. M.Kumaresan S/o.Murugesan

17. S.Venkataparamanandam S/o.Selvaraj

18. T.Parthiban S/o.Tamilarasan

19. S.Jagadiswari S/o.Subramanian

20. S.Rajasekaran S/o.Sundaramoorthy .... Respondents R4 to R20 impleaded vide order dated 12.07.2023 made in W.M.P.No.8664 of 2020 in W.P.No.28125 of 2015 Writ Petition No.28125 of 2015 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned Government Order issued by the 1st respondent herein vide G.O.Ms.No.15/LAS/2015-16 Puducherry dated 31.07.2015 insofar as it relates to SI.Nos.1-10, 12-14, 16-19, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to consider the promotion of the petitioners in the posts of Work Inspector as per the Rules.

For petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondents : Mrs.Sharadha Vivek, Additional Government Pleader (Pondy)

for R1 to R3 Mr.T.M.Naveen, for R4 to R20 *****

O R D E R

The challenge in this writ petition is to the Government Order dated

31.07.2015 bearing G.O.Ms.No.15/LAS/2015–2016 issued by the first respondent. The said order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 114 of the Puducherry Municipalities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Puducherry Municipalities Act” for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity) and under Section 68 of the Puducherry Village and Commune Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Puducherry Panchayat Act” for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity). By the said order, approval was granted by the Government to regularise the services of 55 Technical Assistants, 43 Mazdoors and 16 Maistries working under P.S. Charges (Work-Charged Establishment) in various Municipalities and Commune Panchayats in the Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam Regions, against the existing direct recruitment quota vacancies of Group ‘C’ posts such as Data Entry Operator, Work Inspector, LDC, Bill Collector Grade-II, Electrician, etc., as a one-time measure, by relaxation of the relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules.

2. The petitioners are working as Gangmen in the third respondent Municipality, namely Puducherry Municipality. The petitioners claim that they were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts of Gangmen and that, upon completion of their probation period, their services were regularised.

3. The petitioners further state that the Commissioner, Puducherry Municipality, by communication dated 07.11.2014, requested the Director, Local Administration Department, Puducherry, to amend the Recruitment Rules so as to make provision for promotion to the post of Work Inspector from the feeder category of Gangmen. As per the said communication, a proposal was made to create an avenue of promotion to the post of Work Inspector from the cadre of Gangman/Mason, with five years of qualifying service after regular appointment there

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 Back to top