Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

P.Sekar, Vs The Union of India,

P.Sekar, vs The Union of India,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 29, 2025
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1892399

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/32040/2016

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.Sekar,

Respondent

The Union of India,

Excerpt

.....and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of driver, pursuant to the notification dated nil, bearing ref:nil, issued on 31.07.2013 on merits and treat the petitioner as within the age limit and consequently, consider and appoint the petitioner, if successful as per merit in accordance with law.2. the facts of the case are that the petitioner has applied for the postof driver, when the notification was taken out for the post of drivers and conductors in the year 2010. subsequently, the said notification was withdrawn at the intervention of the lieutenant-governor, puducherry. subsequently, an another notification was issued in the year 2013. however, the notification which was withdrawn was upheld by the court and likewise, the notification issued in the year 2013 was upheld and accordingly, the candidates were selected for the post of drivers and conductors. the grievance of the petitioner is that he was selected in the process of selection vide 2010 notification. however, he was not eligible when the notification was issued in the year 2013. 3.in view of the withdrawal of the notification of the year 2010 was upheld, the question of the petitioner seeking job under 2013 notification does not arise. 4.accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. no costs. (k.surender,j) dn index : yes/no speaking order:yes/noto 1.the union of india, rep. by the secretary to government, transport department, govt. of union territory of puducherry, puducherry.2. puducherry road transport corporation ltd., rep. by its managing director, puducherry.3. the general manager - cum- company secretary, puducherry road transport corporation ltd., puducherry. k. surender, j dn writ petition no.32040 of 2016 29.07.2025

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-07-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 32040 of 2016 P.Sekar, S/o.Pandurangan, Residing at: No.48, Kuttai Street, P.S.Palayam, Puducherry-605 107. Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary To Government, Transport Department, Govt. of Union territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.

2. Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Puducherry.

3. The General Manager - Cum- Company Secretary, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Puducherry. 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 on the file of the third respondent relating to the impugned orders dated 19.08.2016 bearing File no.349/PRTC/Legal/13-14/1382 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Driver, pursuant to the notification dated Nil, bearing ref:Nil, issued on 31.07.2013 on merits and

treat the petitioner as within the age limit and consequently, consider and appoint the petitioner, if successful as per merit in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Saikrishnan for M/s.Sai Bharath and Ilan For Respondents : Mr.A.Tamilvanan, AGP(Pondy) for R1 Mr.R.Sreedhar, St.counsel for R2 & 3

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the third respondent relating to the impugned orders dated 19.08.2016 bearing File no.349/PRTC/Legal/13-14/1382 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Driver, pursuant to the notification dated Nil, bearing ref:Nil, issued on 31.07.2013 on merits and treat the petitioner as within the age limit and consequently, consider and appoint the petitioner, if successful as per merit in accordance with law.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner has applied for the post

of Driver, when the notification was taken out for the post of Drivers and Conductors in the year 2010. Subsequently, the said notification was withdrawn at the intervention of the Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry. Subsequently, an another notification was issued in the year 2013. However, the notification which was withdrawn was upheld by the Court and likewise, the notification issued in the year 2013 was upheld and accordingly, the candidates were selected for the post of Drivers and Conductors. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was selected in the process of selection vide 2010 notification. However, he was not eligible when the notification was issued in the year 2013. 3.In view of the withdrawal of the notification of the year 2010 was upheld, the question of the petitioner seeking job under 2013 notification does not arise. 4.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. (K.SURENDER,J) dn Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No

To 1.The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary To Government, Transport Department, Govt. of Union territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.

2. Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Puducherry.

3. The General Manager - Cum- Company Secretary, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Puducherry. K. SURENDER, J dn Writ Petition No.32040 of 2016 29.07.2025

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2025 Same Parties P.Sekar, vs The Union of India, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales