WA(MD)/764/2022 of The Secretary Vs M. Mahalingam on 11 November 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN J.) Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioner was originally appointed as 10(a)(i) Typist on 20.11.2017. He was working in the Collectorate of Trichy. When special competitive examination was held in the year 2009, the writ petitioner was successful. He was, however, allotted to Forest Department. Unfortunately, the writ petitioner did not join in the appointed post. He chose to stick on to the collectorate. Subsequently, in the year 2012, TNPSC deleted the writ petitioner’s name from the approved list. That was followed by termination of the writ petitioner in the year 2016.

WA(MD) No. 764 of 2022 Challenging the same, W.P.(MD)No.11279 of 2017 was filed. The writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:- “9.In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose the writ petition in the following lines: "The impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 24.02.2016 is quashed and the writ petition is partly allowed. The third respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, for extension of time to report duty taking into consideration the power under Rule 4(e) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Depends upon the order that may be passed in exercise of his discretion to extend the time limit in terms of Rule 4(e) of the Rules, further direction may be issued by the third respondent regarding appointment of the petitioner in service. In case, the petitioner is given appointment, he will be treated as a fresh entrant and he is entitled to get service benefits as applicable to the post in which he is appointed from the date of order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” Questioning the same, TNPSC has filed this writ appeal.

3. The learned standing counsel points out that the power to relax lies with the appointing authority and not with the recruiting agency.

WA(MD) No. 764 of 2022

4. This submission is well founded. That is how, Rule 4(e) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules reads. We, therefore, modify the order of the learned Single Judge. The direction given to the third respondent will be read as the direction given to the fifth respondent. In all other respects, we confirm the order of the learned Single Judge.

5. This writ appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.S.,J.) (M.D.S.,J.) 11-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No IAS

WA(MD) No. 764 of 2022 To

1. The Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department (E.1) Secretariat Chennai - 9

2. The Director Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 15

3. The District Collector Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli

4. The Conservator Of Forest O/o.The Conservator Of Forest, Trichy Circle, J.K.Nagar, Tiruchirappalli

5. The Block Development Officer Thuraiyur Panchayat Union, Thuraiyur Trichy District

WA(MD) No. 764 of 2022 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND M.D.SUMATHI, J. IAS WA(MD) No. 764 of 2022 11-11-2026