IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 2.2.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.34582 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.8854 of 1998) R.Dhamodharan ... Petitioner -Vs.- 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Personnal and Administrative Reforms Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.Inspector General of Registration, 120, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 28. 3.C.M.S. Narendrakumar, Sub Registrar Office, Central Madras. ... Respondents Prayer: Original Application No.8854 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to issue an order of declaration, declaring 1) That the State or the appropriate appointing Authority shall not discriminate the cadres of Assistants in the Registration Department, Ministerial service drawn upto 22nd June 1990 on the basis of Caste viz., B.C. and M.B.C. 2) That while promoting/transferring an Assistant from the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service to the post of 'Sub Registrar Grade II' in the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service by applying the roaster under Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service. 3) That it is discriminatory to apply the classification of the cadres in the Assistants under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service prior to 1990 as Backward and Most Backward for the purpose of promotion and the same would be amounting to retrospective application of Rule 22 taking away the vested rights of the similarly situated Assistants belonging to the Backward Classes. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4) That all the temporary promotions of Assistants to the post of Sub Registrar Grade II from among the Most Backward Classes who are junior and drawing less scale of the pay than the qualified Assistants belonging to the Backward Classes who are recruited and kept in the M.B.C. Candidates are illegal. 5) That the panel and the consequential promotion by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.Samu 400/A3/97 dated 22.10.1997 as illegal and unconstitutional and inconsistent with Rule 22 of Subordinate Service Rules. 6) And consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner in accordance with law. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For petitioner : Mr.S.P.Harikrishnan for M/s.La Law For respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugam Government Advocate. O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner represents that the petitioner already retired from service and nothing survives in this writ petition. He also made an endorsement to that effect. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar vsm/ts To 1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Personnal and Administrative Reforms Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Inspector General of Registration, 120, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 28. Order in W.P.No.34582 of 2006 GR {CO} TP/12.2.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/