Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024Government Polytechnic Colleges and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner as per clause 5 (b)(i) of the No(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on No.14/2019 dated 27.11.2019 and appoint him in the post of Lecturer (Produc(cid:26)on Engineering) in Government Polytechnic Colleges and grant him all a6endant bene;ts on part with the candidates selected and appointed pursuant to the No(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on No.14/2019 dated 27.11.2019.W.P. No.4025 of 2024 ;led under Ar(cid:26)cle 226 of the Cons(cid:26)tu(cid:26)on of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus direc(cid:26)ng the 1st respondent to appoint the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner to the post of Lecturer (Produc(cid:26)on Engineering) pursuant to selec(cid:26)on as per no(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on dated 27.11.2019 in “No(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on No.14/2019, Lecturer for Government Polytechnic Colleges Engineering and Non-Engineering for the year 2017 and 2018” by the 2nd respondent.For Pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oners:Mr. A.Arulmozhi in WP 5027/24Mr. N.Kishorekumar in WP 4025/24For Respondents:Mr. R.Siddharth for R-1 inWP 4025/24 & R-2 in WP 5027/23Mr. R.Gokulakrishnan, AGP forR-1 in WP 5027/23COMMON ORDERWhile W.P. No.4025/2024 has been ;led by the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner seeking a direc(cid:26)on to appoint her in the post of Lecturer (Produc(cid:26)on Engineering), W.P. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024No.5027/2023 has been ;led to reject the provisional selec(cid:26)on of the 5th respondent/pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner in W.P. No.4025/2024 for the post of Lecturer (Produc(cid:26)on Engineering) on the ground that she is ineligible to hold the said post for not having the requisite quali;ca(cid:26)on and for a further direc(cid:26)on to direct the respondent to appoint the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner in the post of Lecturer (Produc(cid:26)on Engineering) with all a6endant bene;ts on par with the candidates selected and appointed pursuant to No(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on No.14/2019 dated 27.11.2019.2. For brevity, the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner in W.P. No.5027/2023 will be referred to as the ‘male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner’ and the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner in W.P. No.4025/2024 will be referred to as ‘female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner’.3. The 2nd respondent, viz., Teachers Recruitment Board, had called for applica(cid:26)ons for the post of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges and Special Ins(cid:26)tu(cid:26)ons (Engineering/Non Engineering) vide Adver(cid:26)sement No.04/2017 dated 16.06.2017. The examina(cid:26)on for the said post was held on 16.09.2017 and the male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner stood ;rst amongst the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste Arundhathiar category (for short ‘SC-A’). The male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner was called for cer(cid:26);cate veri;ca(cid:26)on for the single post, which was allocated for 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024Scheduled Caste Arunthathiar Women who have studied in Tamil Medium, since there was no women candidate available. Inspite of the said fact of the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner’s cer(cid:26);cate having been veri;ed and the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner was wai(cid:26)ng for the order of appointment, the en(cid:26)re selec(cid:26)on adver(cid:26)sement was cancelled and a fresh no(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on No.14/2019 was issued on 27.11.2019 invi(cid:26)ng fresh applica(cid:26)ons.4. It is the further averment of male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner that he again applied for the said post and appeared in the examina(cid:26)on and stood ;rst in SC-A category. The 2nd respondent published the provisional selec(cid:26)on list on 23.7.2022 in which it was no(cid:26);ed that the result of the woman candidate with Registra(cid:26)on No.19PT0803001378 was withheld for want of produc(cid:26)on of equivalence G.O., which, it is alleged by the male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner, means that the candidate was not possessed of the prescribed educa(cid:26)onal quali;ca(cid:26)on nor had the equivalent quali;ca(cid:26)on as well.5. It is the further averment of the male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner that Rule 3 (b)(i) and (ii) of the no(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on prescribes that if quali;ed and suitable woman candidates are not available for selec(cid:26)on to the vacancies reserved for them, those vacancies 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024will be ;lled by male candidates belonging to the respec(cid:26)ve communal category and in the event of non-availability of person studied in Tamil Medium, the post reserved for Tamil Medium candidates will be ;lled by general candidates. It is further averred that in the absence of woman with quali;ca(cid:26)on in the prescribed major discipline or with equivalent quali;ca(cid:26)on, the vacancy has to be ;lled by the male candidate belonging to the respec(cid:26)ve category. The woman candidate, who was provisionally selected for the said post of Lecturer (Produc(cid:26)on Engineering) is not quali;ed with the prescribed educa(cid:26)onal quali;ca(cid:26)on and, therefore, as per the Rules, the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner ought to be called for cer(cid:26);cate veri;ca(cid:26)on and his name ought to have been included in the selec(cid:26)on list.6. It is further averred by the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner that female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is not eligible for the post of Lecturer (Produc(cid:26)on Engineering) as the subject of Aeronau(cid:26)cal Engineering is not listed as equivalent stream in Table 2 of Addendum of No(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on No.14/2019 dated 27.11.2019 and further the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner has not produced any equivalence cer(cid:26);cate and, therefore, the selec(cid:26)on of pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner–F is illegal and the same deserves to be set aside as per clause 5 (b)(i) of the no(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on and that only the male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is eligible to be appointed to the said post. With the aforesaid averments, the writ pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on in 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024W.P. No.5027/2023 has been preferred by male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner for the relief stated supra.7. In W.P. No.4025/2024, it is averred by female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner that she joined and completed ‘Bachelor of Engineering’ specialising in ‘Aeronau(cid:26)cal Engineering and did her post-gradua(cid:26)on, viz., Master of Engineering in ‘Mechatronics’. The female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner applied for recruitment for the aforesaid post and that the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner was quali;ed for the said post by virtue of her post-gradua(cid:26)on degree in Master of Engineering with specialisa(cid:26)on in Mechatronics Course, which is equivalent to Produc(cid:26)on Engineering. Female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner duly applied for the said job of Lecturer for Government Polytechnic Colleges, Engineering and Non-Engineering for the year 2017 and 2018. It is further averred that Female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner had been selected for appointment but her appointment had been withheld and her quali;ca(cid:26)on had been referred to the Equivalence Commi6ee, but pending such considera(cid:26)on of equivalence, the writ pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on in W.P. No.5027/23 had come to be ;led by male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner suppressing the fact that female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner had applied to the said post with her post-graduate quali;ca(cid:26)on and, therefore, W.P. No.5027/2023 deserves to be dismissed.7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/20248. It is the further averment of female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner that it could be seen from various circulars and clari;ca(cid:26)ons issued by the appropriate authori(cid:26)es that Produc(cid:26)on Engineering includes Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering and Produc(cid:26)on Engineering Sandwich and also clearly states that Mechatronics is part of Produc(cid:26)on Engineering, which clearly reveals that female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is quali;ed to apply and be appointed as Lecturer by virtue of her post-graduate quali;ca(cid:26)on in Mechatronics, which is equivalent to Produc(cid:26)on Engineering. Therefore, female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner prays this Court to issue an aKrma(cid:26)ve direc(cid:26)on to the 2nd respondent to appoint female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner in the post of Lecturer (Produc(cid:26)on Engineering).9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner that the male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner scored the top marks among the SC-A candidates and ought to have been called for veri;ca(cid:26)on as the name of female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner, who has scored only 64 marks, was withheld in the provisional list for non-produc(cid:26)on of equivalence G.O. and, therefore, it could only be inferred that female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is not eligible for the post of Lecturer in Produc(cid:26)on Engineering.8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/202410. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that clause 5 (b)(i) of the No(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on No.14/2019 provides that where suitable women candidates are not available for selec(cid:26)on, the vacancies reserved for them should be ;lled up with male candidates belonging to the said communal categories and in the present case, there being no suitable women candidate available and the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner not ful;lling the eligibility criteria, the 2nd respondent ought to have selected and appointed the male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner in the said post.11. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that Rule 6 (b)(1) pertaining to educa(cid:26)onal quali;ca(cid:26)on clearly prescribes that the person applying for the post should possess a bachelor’s degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology/Architecture with not less than sixty percent of marks or equivalent. In the present case, female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is not possessed of the basic bachelor’s degree in the appropriate branch or its equivalent degree on the date of applying and, therefore, she cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Produc(cid:26)on Engineering. 12. Therefore, it is submi6ed by the learned counsel that female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner having not ful;lled the eligibility condi(cid:26)ons prescribed for the educa(cid:26)onal 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024quali;ca(cid:26)ons and there being no woman candidate in SC-A with Tamil Medium available, male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner being the top male candidate in SC-A ought to have been appointed and, therefore, it is prayed that this Court may grant the relief as sought for by male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner in W.P. No.5027/2023.13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner submi6ed that female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner was selected, but her appointment was withheld as her quali;ca(cid:26)on has been referred to the Equivalence Commi6ee and, therefore, female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner cannot be said to be not quali;ed to hold the said post. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that this crucial fact has been suppressed by male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner and, therefore, on that short ground, the writ pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on of male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner deserves to be dismissed.14. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that clause 6 (b)(1) of the No(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on No.14/2019 clearly provides in the proviso that where the candidates possesses a Master’s Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology/Architecture, the candidate should possess a ;rst class or equivalent in the appropriate branch either at Bachelor’s or Master’s Degree level. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the Equivalence Commi6ee 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024has approved the Master’s Degree of the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner in Mechatronics as equivalent to Master’s Degree in Produc(cid:26)on Engineering and, therefore, by virtue of proviso to clause 6 (b)(1) of No(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on No.14/2019, the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is en(cid:26)tled to be appointed to the said post as she not only ful;ls the quali;ca(cid:26)ons but also belongs to SC-A category to which the post has been earmarked.15. Learned counsel for the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner, relying on the circular of the All India Council for Technical Educa(cid:26)on dated 23.10.2020 submi6ed that the Council has categorically clari;ed the relevance of equivalence of appropriate nomenclature degrees for recruitment/promo(cid:26)on of teachers in technical ins(cid:26)tu(cid:26)ons, which circular is squarely in favour of female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner. Poin(cid:26)ng out the relevant por(cid:26)ons in the said circular and the addendum, learned counsel submi6ed that from the above, it is clear that Produc(cid:26)on Engineering also includes Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing and Produc(cid:26)on Engineering Sandwich and that Mechatronics is part of Produc(cid:26)on Engineering and, therefore, the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is fully quali;ed to hold the said post.16. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is more be6er quali;ed for appointment than other candidates as she 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024possesses a post-graduate quali;ca(cid:26)on and has a be6er standing and experience and also ful;ls the communal aspect also and, therefore, she ought to be selected and appointed and, therefore, prays that an aKrma(cid:26)ve direc(cid:26)on be given by this Court to the 2nd respondent for appoin(cid:26)ng female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner.17. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, placing his submissions on the basis of the counter aKdavit, submi6ed that the case of the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner was withheld for the reason that the equivalence of the degree was under considera(cid:26)on. However, the selec(cid:26)on was made as early as on July, 2022, but the writ pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on has been ;led by male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner only in the year 2023 almost aMer a lapse of more than six months of the provisional selec(cid:26)on and the delay is fatal, moreso when the recruitment has a6ained ;nality and the inten(cid:26)on of the male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is only to hamper the recruitment.18. This Court gave its careful considera(cid:26)on to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/202419. The facts in the present case is not in dispute. There is no quarrel with the recruitment process and also the fact that the post has been earmarked for SC-A –Women – Tamil Medium candidate. In this regard clause 5 of the No(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on relates rule of reserva(cid:26)on in which this court is concerned with the Horizontal reserva(cid:26)on and more par(cid:26)cularly ‘Women Reserva(cid:26)on’. For clarity, clause 5 (b)(i) is quoted hereunder :-“b) Horizontal Reserv(cid:18)on :i) Women Reserva(cid:18)on : 30% Women reserva(cid:18)on will be provided horizontally as per exis(cid:18)ng Government Rules/Orders. If quali(ed and suitable women candidates are not available for selec(cid:18)on against the vacancies reserved for them, those vacancies will be (lled by male candidates belonging to those respec(cid:18)ve communal categories.”20. The post, it is admi6ed, has been reserved for SC-A – Women – Tamil Medium. However, it is the stand of the par(cid:26)es that no candidate available from Tamil Medium is available and necessarily, at the ;rst instance, the said post is to be ;lled up from SC-A-Women, if female candidates are available. 21. It is not the case of the male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner that female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner does not belong to SC-A category and, therefore, as per the communal rota(cid:26)on, if female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is otherwise found eligible and quali;ed, female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner will have a 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024march over male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner. However, the main conten(cid:26)on of male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is that female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is not quali;ed as she has not done her Bachelor’s Degree in Produc(cid:26)on Engineering and her Post-Graduate Degree in Mechatronics, on the date of applica(cid:26)on, is not held to be equivalent to Produc(cid:26)on Engineering and, therefore, her case cannot be considered and that being the case, as per clause 5 (b)(i), there being no other woman candidate available for selec(cid:26)on, then it has to be ;lled up with SC-A male candidate.22. Quali;ca(cid:26)on has been prescribed under clause 6 of the No(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on of which Educa(cid:26)on Quali;ca(cid:26)on is found in sub-clause (b), which reads as under :-“6. Quali(cid:9)ca(cid:11)ons :a)...........b)Educa(cid:11)onal Quali(cid:9)ca(cid:11)ons :Candidates should possess the following quali(ca(cid:18)on on the date of no(cid:18)(ca(cid:18)on :1.Lecturer in Engineering subjects : “A Bachelor’s Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology/Architecture” with not less than sixty percent of marks or equivalent :Provided that if the candidate has a Master’s Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology/Architecture, the candidate should possess a (rst class or equivalent in the 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024appropriate branch either at Bachelor’s or Master’s degree level.”23. Proviso to clause 6 (b)(1) provides that where a candidate is possessed of Master’s Degree in the appropriate of Engineering/Technology/Architecture, the candidate should possess a ;rst class or equivalent in the appropriate Branch either at Bachelor’s or Master’s degree level.24. The basic quali;ca(cid:26)on is a Bachelor’s Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology in sub-clause (1) of clause 6(b) is not disputed but the proviso appended to also provides that in case of Master’s Degree having been obtained by a candidate, it should be either in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology the candidate should possess a ;rst class or equivalent in the appropriate branch either at Bachelor’s or Master’s level.25. It is borne out by record that female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is possessed of a Master’s Degree in Mechatronics, which according to male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is not an equivalent degree and, therefore, her candidature cannot be considered. However, what is material to be noted is the fact that equivalence of the various degrees have been considered by the Equivalence Commi6ee cons(cid:26)tuted by the 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024Government of Tamil Nadu on the basis of the le6er from the Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Educa(cid:26)on and various degrees, which are equivalent to one another have been no(cid:26);ed of which Resolu(cid:26)on No.286 pertains to the various Major/Core branches of the PG Engineering Degree in which equivalence commi6ee has passed the below men(cid:26)oned resolu(cid:26)on :-Resolu(cid:11)on No.286Public Services – Major/Core branches of Engineering / Technology and their relevant / appropriate PG degree nomenclature for recruitment to teaching posi(cid:18)ons - RegardingEquivalence Commi<ee has approved all nomenclature of PG Degree relevant /appropriate to Major / Core Branch of Engineering / Technology as no(cid:18)(ed by AICTE vide no(cid:18)(ca(cid:18)on F. No.27/RIFD/Pay/01/2017-18 dt. 28/4/201726. Further, the PG Degrees relevant / appropriate to major / core branch of Engineering / Technology as per DOTE Le6er No.32483/B2/2019 dated 09.12.2019 and 03.01.2020, in which equivalence had been se6led reveals that in respect of Produc(cid:26)on Engineering the equivalence engineering degrees are Produc(cid:26)on Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering and Produc(cid:26)on Engineering (Sandwich) are the major branch and Mechatronics, which female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner has studied is the core branch, which has been held to be equivalent to Produc(cid:26)on Engineering. 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/202427. Therefore, as early as in the year 2019 and 2020, through the aforesaid circulars and Government Orders, the Post Graduate Degree done by the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner has been held to be equivalent to Produc(cid:26)on Engineering and merely because the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner has not submi6ed the equivalence cer(cid:26);cate would not rob female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner of the bene;t, as the equivalence stood se6led at the (cid:26)me of the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner applying for the said post. Therefore, on the date of the no(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on, the quali;ca(cid:26)on, which the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner possessed was equivalent to the quali;ca(cid:26)on which was required for the said post and, therefore, the reference made by the authority to the equivalence commi6ee would in no way hamper the progress of female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner to seek appointment to the post of Lecturer (Produc(cid:26)on Engineering).28. Once the equivalence of the degree has been approved to be equivalent, the only issue that requires determina(cid:26)on is as to whether female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner has obtained ;rst class or equivalent in the appropriate branch in the Master’s degree. There is no quarrel with the fact that female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner has obtained ;rst class in the Post-Gradua(cid:26)on Degree and, therefore, there is ful;lment of the educa(cid:26)onal quali;ca(cid:26)on that has been prescribed in the aforesaid no(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on.17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/202429. Therefore, reading proviso to clause 6 (b)(1) harmoniously, it would clearly reveal that where a candidate has obtained a Master’s Degree in the appropriate branch, which is equivalent to the branch in which the quali;ca(cid:26)on is sought for, then there would be due compliance of the sub-clause (1) of clause 6 (b) and, therefore, the Master’s degree possessed of by the female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner would have to be held to be equivalent to the degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering, as mandated in the no(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on and, therefore, female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner would be en(cid:26)tled to an appointment to the post for which she has been selected, as she ful;ls the other criteria, viz., being a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste Arunthathiar category, which is the prescrip(cid:26)on in the no(cid:26);ca(cid:26)on. Therefore, necessarily, she being the successful candidate in the said category, viz., SC-A-W in the horizontal reserva(cid:26)on, the 2nd respondent is bound to appoint her to the said post and male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner cannot claim any right to the said post as belonging to SC-A category, as a woman of the very same category is available, who will have the ;rst preference to the said post.30. In the light of the reasoning aforesaid, W.P. No.5207/2023 ;led by male pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is dismissed and W.P. No.4025/2024 ;led by female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed to issue appointment order forthwith to female pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner and accommodate her in the post of Lecturer (Produc(cid:26)on Engineering) on the basis of her selec(cid:26)on. Consequently, connected miscellaneous pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16.12.2025Index : Yes / NoGLNTo1.The SecretaryHigher Educa(cid:26)on DepartmentGovernment of Tamil Nadu9th Floor, EVK Sampath BuildingsCollege Road, Chennai 600 006.2.The SecretaryTeacher’s Recruitment Board4th Floor, EVK Sampath BuildingsCollege Road, Chennai 600 006.3.The CommissionerDirectorate of Technical Educa(cid:26)on53, Sardar Patel RoadGuindy, Chennai 600 025.19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________W.P. Nos.5027/2023-4025/2024 M.DHANDAPANI, J. GLN PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P. NOS.5207 OF 2023 & 4025 OF 2024Pronounced on 16.12.202520