1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated:28.04.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY WA(MD)No.387 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2011 against WP(MD)No.4927/09 The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai-600006.:Appellant/2nd Respondent -Vs- 1. Mayil Vahanan, S/o. Duraipandian, No.6/29, Kanagavel Nagar, Aathikulam, Madurai - 625 007. 2. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Department, Chennai-600009. 3. The Director of Fisheries Department, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006. 4. The District Collector,Madurai District,Madurai. :Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 24.11.2009 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.4927 of 2009 filed under article 226 of the constitution of india to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the second respondent in Mamorandum No.2449/SCE/APD/L/2009 dated 7.5.2009 and consequential order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.15602/M2/2009 dated 1.6.2009 and quash the same in respect of the petitioner's appointment and direct the respondents to regularize the service in the respective department, where the petitioner has put in service. For Appellant :Mr.S.P. Maharajan For Respondents:Mr.N.Sathish Babu for R-1 Mr.M.Rajarajan for R-2 to R-4,Government Advocate JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2009 in W.P.(MD)No.4927 of 2009. 2.The said writ petition has been filed by the first respondent herein challenging an order dated 07.05.2009, by which he was informed that he has been selected in Special Competitive Examination 2007 for the posts of Junior Assistant and allotted to Fisheries Department, and the consequential order issued by the third respondent dated 01.06.2009, posting him at Ramanathapuram. 3.The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 24.11.2009 allowed the said writ petition and directed the appellant herein / Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to post the first respondent herein in the existing vacancy at Revenue Divisional Officer's Office, Madurai or any other existing vacancies available, as on date, at the Revenue Department, Madurai District. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein / Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has preferred this Writ Appeal. 4.Now, the case of the appellant is that originally the first respondent herein was appointed in the Revenue Divisional Office, Madurai as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Junior Assistant. Subsequently, in the Special Competitive Examination 2007 conducted with regard to the temporary appointees, the first respondent herein was selected and allotted to the Fisheries Department and posting order was also issued, posting him at Ramanathapuram. 5.However, the grievance of the first respondent is that since originally he was appointed and served in the Revenue Department, he should be permitted to continue in the same department as Junior Assistant. In support of this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has submitted that since the first respondent is a physically challenged person, he should be allowed to continue in the same department. 6.As far as the issue in question is concerned, already this Court decided the same in the Judgment passed in W.A.(MD)No.242 of 2010 dated 27.07.2010 and we are also told that the said Judgment was confirmed in the Review Application also preferred by the petitioner therein. 7.As far as the grievance of the first respondent herein that since he is a physically challenged person, he cannot be posted elsewhere and he should be permitted to continue in the same department is concerned, it is not supported by any reason and not convincing basing on any ground. If the first respondent is a physically challenged person and if he wants to continue in the same station, he is at liberty to make a representation, seeking to transfer to the place where he feels it is convenient for him. It is for the Authorities to decide the same. However, basing on this reason, the first respondent cannot be permitted to take a stand that he should be allowed to continue in the same department wherein he was initially appointed. Apart from this, the issue in question has already been covered by the Judgment of this Court and the same is applicable to the first respondent herein. 8.Under the above said circumstances, while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2009 in W.P.(MD)No.4927 of 2009, we allow this Writ Appeal. However, there will be no order as to costs. It is made clear that fifteen days time from today is granted to the first respondent herein to join duty wherein he has been posted and in the event of failure on the part of the first respondent to join duty within the stipulated period, the appellant/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is at liberty to cancel the appointment and allotment orders issued to the first respondent herein. The connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Department, Chennai-600009. 2.The Director of Fisheries Department, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006. 3.The District Collector,Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Secretary, Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-6. +1CC to Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Advocate. SR.No.16068. Dpn/- WA(MD)No.387 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2011 RP/23.05.2011/2P/6C. 28.04.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/