Madras High Court
A.Shanmugam vs K.Santhanam on 14 December, 2018
Bench: M.M.Sundresh, Krishnan Ramasamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1599 of 2011
& M.P.Nos.1 & 2 2011
1.A.Shanmugam
2.S.E.Syed Usuff
3.S.Somasundaram
4.S.Karunakaran
5.S.Sosenthran
6.N.Devadoss
7.K.Natarajan
8.R.Krishnasamy
9.P.K.Thirumurthy
10.N.Govindarajan ... Appellants
Vs.
1.K.Santhanam
2.K.Lakshmanan
3.A.Pandian
4.R.Ebinazer Yesudurai
5.S.Koil Anthony
6.C.R.Vijayakumar
7.V.Sankaranarayanan
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
8.P.M.Sajeevan
9.D.Mahalingam
10.P.Balakrishnan
11.R.Navaneetham
12.State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Home Secretary,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
13.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 004.
14.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore.
15.The Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore-641 018. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 09.11.2010 passed in W.P.No.19976 of 2010.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondents : No appearance for R1 to R11
Mrs.A.Srijayanthi,
Special Government Pleader for R12
to R15
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.) Despite several opportunities, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents 1 to 11. Therefore, we are inclined to proceed with the matter on merit.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
2. The order of the learned single Judge is predicated by the appellants on the sole ground that it will have a civil consequence by which the private respondents/writ petitioners would be made senior to the appellants. We find considerable force in the submissions made. While there is no difficulty with respect to the promotion and the other consequential benefits, the order of the learned single Judge cannot be construed to mean that the private respondents/writ petitioners will have their seniority fixed over and above the appellants without hearing them. Therefore, without expressing anything on merits, we are inclined to set aside the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the matter stands remitted to the learned single Judge dealing with the roster and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
3. The appellants herein are impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the writ petition.
(M.M.S.,J.) (K.R.,J.)
14.12.2018
raa
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
To
1.The Home Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 004.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore.
4.The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore-641 018.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
W.A.No.1599 of 2011
14.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in