V.Jaganathan Vs. the Principal Commissioner.

V.Jaganathan. vs The Principal Commissioner.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 02, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/926192

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/926192
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Vinod K.Sharma, J.
Decided On: Mar 02, 2012
Case Number: W.P.No.122 of 2007 (O.A.No.7049 of 2001)
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.Jaganathan.

Advocate Mr.K.Selvaraj, Adv

Respondent

The Principal Commissioner.

Advocate Mr.R.Ravichandran, Adv.

Excerpt

prayer: this petition came to be numbered by transfer of o.a.no. 7049 of 2001 from the file of the tamil nadu administrative tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the impugned order, dated 18.02.2001 with consequent relief for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the panel so as to fix the name of the petitioner as no.5 in the approved list of deputy tahsildar for the year 2000.order1. the petitioner has approached this court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 18.02.2001 vide which 38 assistants were included in the approved list of deputy tahsildar, salem district for the year 2000.2 for the reason best known to the petitioner, none of the persons selected are impleaded as parties to the writ petition. in the absence of necessary parties, the writ as framed is not competent, as in absence of party no adverse order can be passed.3 the only prayer in the writ petition, is that the case of the petitioner was also required to be considered, as juniors to the petitioners were included in the approved list.4 it is not disputed that the juniors to the petitioner are belonging to the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and most backward class category which form different class from that of the petitioner, and were promoted against the posts reserved for them.5 the petitioner therefore, cannot have any grievance to promotion, as the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion to the posts reserved for sc, st and m.b.c. no merit, dismissed.no costs.

Full Judgment

PRAYER: This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 7049 of 2001 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order, dated 18.02.2001 with consequent relief for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the panel so as to fix the name of the petitioner as No.5 in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2000.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 18.02.2001 vide which 38 Assistants were included in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildar, Salem District for the year 2000.

2 For the reason best known to the petitioner, none of the persons selected are impleaded as parties to the writ petition. In the absence of necessary parties, the writ as framed is not competent, as in absence of party no adverse order can be passed.

3 The only prayer in the writ petition, is that the case of the petitioner was also required to be considered, as juniors to the petitioners were included in the approved list.

4 It is not disputed that the juniors to the petitioner are belonging to the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and Most backward class category which form different class from that of the petitioner, and were promoted against the posts reserved for them.

5 The petitioner therefore, cannot have any grievance to promotion, as the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion to the posts reserved for SC, ST and M.B.C. No merit, dismissed.

No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties V.Jaganathan. vs The Principal Commissioner. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Vinod K.Sharma, J.