IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 02-07-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.49454 of 2006 (O.A.No.666 of 2001) T.G.Haribabu .. Petitioner Versus 1.Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 2.The Principal, Govt. Thirumagal Mills College, Gudiyattam. .. Respondents Prayer: Original Application No.666 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.49454 of 2006, seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 09.08.2000, issued in the Rc.No.27280/B2/2000 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Lab Assistant at Government Thirumagal Mills College with all attemded benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajagopal For Respondent : Ms. S. Anitha Government Advocate O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to call for and quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 09.08.2000, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his reinstatement in service and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as a Lab Assistant at the Government Thirumagal Mills College, with all attemded benefits. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had been appointed as a Lab Assistant at the Government Thirumagal Mills College, Gudiyattam, on 10.01.1983, through the District Employment Exchange. Even though https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner had been appointed, originally, under 10(A)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Temporary Service Rules, his services had been regularised thereafter. However, the 2nd Respondent, had terminated the services of the petitioner, on 28.06.1984, without assigning proper reasons for such termination. In such circumstances, the petitioner had made several representations to the respondents for reinstating him in service. However, such representations had not been considered by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred an Original Application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. 4. The Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal by an order, dated 17.04.2000, had directed the 2nd respondent therein to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, on merits, within a specified period. Pursuant to the said order of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 17.04.2000, the first respondent in the present writ petition had passed an order, dated 09.08.2000, stating that the petitioner had been in temporary service only for a period of 7 months and that he was ousted from service, on 28.06.1984. The request of the petitioner for reinstatement in service have been made after a lapse of 16 years and therefore, it cannot be considered. 5. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the claims made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has challenged his removal from service, belatedly, after lapse of 5 years, i.e., by filing an Original Application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.1954/1990. The Tribunal by its order, dated 07.08.1991, had dismissed the Original Application due to latches, as the application had been filed, belatedly. No appeal had been filed against the order passed by the tribunal, on 07.08.1991, dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner, in O.A.No.1954/1990. In such circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of mertis and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, at this stage. From the records available, it is clear that, though the petitioner had been ousted from service by an order, dated 28.06.1984, he had approached the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal only in the year, 1990, by filing an Original Application, in O.A.No.1954 of 1990, which had been dismissed by the tribunal by its order, dated 07.08.1991, on the ground of latches. Even thereafter, the petitioner had not preferred any appeal against the said order of the Tribunal, dated 07.08.1991. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. In such circumstances, this Court finds no error in the order of the first respondent, dated 09.08.2000, rejecting the request of the petitioner for reinstating him in service. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ars To The Director of Collegeate Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. Writ Petition No.49454 of 2000 sj(co) pmk.17.7.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/