Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B.Pugalendhi, J
Subhiksha – Appellant
Versus
Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S. – Respondent
CONT P(MD)No.874 of 2026|W.P.(MD)No.36746 of 2025|W.P.(MD)No.35806 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu
For the Respondents:Mr.Ajmalkhan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader
Division Bench stay of appointments under challenged rule supersedes prior recruitment directions, rendering contempt petition infructuous.
Headnote:First Paragraph: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 11 governs petitions for willful disobedience of court orders. Essential facts involve the petitioner alleging non-compliance with the Single Judge's order dated 27.01.2026 in W.P.(MD)No.36746 of 2025 directing completion of recruitment. The court found that a Division Bench in W.P.(MD)No.35806 of 2025 had stayed appointments under the challenged Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Secretaries (Condition of Service) Rules, 2023, rendering contempt moot. Second Paragraph: Key issue framed: Whether respondents willfully disobeyed the prior order amid ongoing challenge to recruitment rules. Ratio decidendi: Division Bench order supersedes prior direction as it stays appointments pending detailed analysis of Rule 3 violating Article 243 Constitution, which mandates reservation at appropriate units, not entire district panchayats as one unit. Last Paragraph: Contempt Petition closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. alleged non-compliance with prior recruitment order. (Para 1) |
| 2. division bench stays appointments under challenged rule 3. (Para 2) |
| 3. prior finding of fair selection process. (Para 3) |
| 4. contempt closed due to supervening division bench order. (Para 4) |
ORDER
This Contempt Petition has been filed complaining that the order of this Court dated 27.01.2026 passed in W.P.(MD)No.36746 of 2025 has not been complied with.
2. Today, when this contempt petition is taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that a Division Bench of this Court has seized off this issue in W.P.(MD)No.35806 of 2025 on 04.03.2026 and passed an order as under:
“This writ petition has been filed challenging Rule
3 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Secretaries (Condition of Service) Rules, 2023 with regard to the appointment to the post of Panchayat Secretary.
2.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the very Rule framed by the Government violates Article 243 of the Constitution of India. Under Article 243 of the Constitution, reservation shall be made and in view of subject Rule, the entire District Panchayats has been made as one unit and hence, it will go against the very constitution.
3.The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that there is a direction by the learned Single Judge to complete the recruitment process within the time limit and seeks time to file counter.
4. On perusal of the Rule in question, we find that though the Rule for appointment has been framed for direct recruitments, there is no procedure whatsoever set out as to the manner in which the direct recruitment should be appointed under the said provisions.
5. Considering the fact that the challenge has been made to the Rule position and also considering the fact that there is no specific procedure set out in the Rules with regard to the recruitment process, we are of the view that the matter requires detailed analysis.
6. Since the very Rule, under which the recruitment process was undertaken is under challenge, we hold that pursuant to the said Rule there shall not be any appointment at present.”
3. For the first time, this Court found that the selection process has been conducted by the Government agency in a fair and proper manner. This Court has issued a direction in the earlier round of litigation to ensure that the method of recruitment should not be affected.
4. Since the Division Bench has seized off the matter and passed an order that there shall not be any appointment at present, this Contempt Petition is closed.
