Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 30 2022 To June 5, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238 NOMINAL INDEX 1. Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 2. Kandasamy v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 229 3. Uma Anandan Kuppusamy Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 230 4. TR Ramanathan v. Tamil Nadu State Mental Health Authority and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 231 5. NCC Infrastructure Holdings Ltd and Anr. v. TAQA India Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Arb. O.P. (Comm. Div) Nos. 410 and 412 of 2021., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232 6. Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233 7. Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234 8. Dr. S Giridharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 235 9. SJ Suryah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 236 10. Abdul Rashid Sahib v. Ramachandran and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 237 11. L Nandagopal Yadav v Mr Udai Pratap Singh and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238 REPORTS 1. Equal Opportunity In Public Employment A Constitutional Mandate But Appointment Can't Be Claimed As A Matter Of Absolute Right: Madras High Court Case Title: Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 The Madras High Court recently observed that in matters of public employments, equal opportunities should be granted. Whenever a decision is taken with respect to recruitment, the competent authorities are bound to follow the recruitment rules in force by providing equal opportunities to all candidate. However, the court also observed that appointments can never be claimed as a matter of absolute right. Justice SM Subramaniam was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by persons who took part in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Field Assistant (Trainee) in 2016. The court observed that a direction could not be made to the respondents to appoint petitioners as Field Assistants and that too after a lapse of six years. It also held that the writ petitioners have not established any right for the purpose of granting the relief of appointment to the post of Field Assistant, as appointments are to be made in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. 2. "Rights And Duties Are Corresponding", Madras High Court Observes That Whistle-Blowers Are Expected To Be Dutiful While Dealing With Public Causes Case Title: Kandasamy v The State of Tamil Nadu and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 229 Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad of Madras High Court recently observed that even though the courts had a duty to protect the rights of whistleblowers, the whistleblowers are expected to exercise their rights in the manner known to law and excess exercise or high handednedd can never be allowed. The court observed that rights of both the petitioner and the whistleblower is to be protected. While exercising the rights, If any excessiveness has been committed by any person, the authorities or the persons concerned are empowered to lodge a complaint before higher authorities and before the police authorities for taking appropriate actions in manner known to law. In the event of any such complaint the authorities are expected to act immediately by conducting an enquiry and by following the procedures. 3. "Vague Statements" : Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Directions To Not Demolish Temples Which Existed As On August 15, 1947 Case Title: Uma Anandan Kuppusamy Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 230 The Madras High Court rejected a writ petition seeking directions to the State Government not to demolish any temple which existed as on 15 August 1947. The petitioner had relied on the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 to state that the temples existing as on 15 August 1947 should not be demolished. However, the Court observed that the writ petition was filed with vague statements, without particulars about the temples. A division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that a writ petition can be maintained only when there is a cause of action. "The vague statement of facts cannot be taken to be the basis for filing the writ petition or for its acceptance. Rather, it should be after proper research of the facts so as to bring the material on record to prove the statement of facts given in the writ petition. The petitioner has utterly failed to do so and filed the writ petition seeking directions without showing the name of the temples said to have been...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 30 2022 To June 5, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags