Writ Petition No. 19638 of 2019 · Madras High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
In view of the above submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. In view of the above submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.19638 of 2019 Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.02.01.2025Index : Yes/NoSpeaking order: Yes/NodnTo1. The State of Tamil NaduRep. by Secretary to Government, Rural Development and…
Judgment
Writ Petition No.19638 of 2019IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-01-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BATTU DEVANANDWP No. 19638 of 2019& WMP No.10434 of 2021R.PremaS/o.Rajendriran, No.2-35A, Main Road, Periyakrishnapuram Village and Post, Andimadam Taluk, Ariyalur District - 621 805 Petitioner(s) Vs1.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 0092. The Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 005.3. The District Collector, Ariyalur District - 621 7044. The Personal Assistant (Development) to the Collector, Ariyalur District - 621 7045. The Assistant Director (Panchayat)Ariyalur District - 621 704.6. The Special Officer / The Block Development Officer (Panchayat)Andimadam Taluk, Ariyalur District - 621 8017. The Employment Officer, The Employment Exchange, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 8. Ms.Sathyapathi1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.19638 of 2019 Respondent(s)PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of appointment issued by the 6th respondent/the Block Development Officer Andimadam Panchayat Union, Andimadam in Na.Ka.No.1121/2017/Aa2 dated 06.03.2019 in favour of 8th respondent and quash the same and further direct the 6th respondent to appoint the petitioner or suitable candidate in the above place as per the Tamilnadu Panchayat Secretaries(Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013.For Petitioner(s): Mr.Usha RammanFor Respondent(s): Mr.R.L.Karthika, GA for 1 to 5 &7 Mr.R.S.Selvam, GA for R6 Mr.K.Gandhikumar for R8ORDERToday, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition and he has also made an endorsement in the petition to that effect.
Operative part
In view of the above submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.19638 of 2019 Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.02.01.2025Index : Yes/NoSpeaking order: Yes/NodnTo1. The State of Tamil NaduRep. by Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 60 009.2. The Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 005.
The District Collector, Ariyalur District - 621 7044. The Personal Assistant (Development) to the Collector, Ariyalur District - 621 7045. The Assistant Director (Panchayat)Ariyalur District - 621 704.6. The Special Officer / The Block Development Officer (Panchayat)Andimadam Taluk, Ariyalur District - 621 8017. The Employment Officer, The Employment Exchange, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.BATTU DEVANAND, J3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.19638 of 2019dn Writ Petition No.19638 of 201902.01.20254/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.