0

Madras High Court Directs The Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services board to appoint a committee and review for the recruitment of an Fireman.

Blog, blog , , ,

Title: M. Navaneetha Krishnan Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board.

Decided On: September 14, 2023.

W.A.(MD)No.1351 of 2023. 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy.

Facts:

The Government of Tamil Nadu issued notification for the post of Fireman in Category-5 in Fire Subordinate Service. Recruitment to the said post is governed by the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which are known as Tamil Nadu Fire Subordinate Service Rules, as per which, the post is to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. The petitioner considering himself fully qualified to be appointed to the said post submitted an application in April 2019. Pursuant to the application, the appellant was allowed to participate in the selection process and based on his marks in the written examinations, physical examination etc., the appellant was selected for the said post and his name figures in the select list of 191 persons selected for the said post. However, even though 178 out of 191 selected persons were sent for training with effect from 07.07.2020, the appellant was not called for training. Upon enquiry, the appellant was informed that on account of his antecedents being involved in criminal cases, he was not being sent for training. Therefore, the appellant made a detailed representation to the respondents on 16.07.2020. Upon the said representation, the impugned order dated 27.07.2020 was passed communicating the reasons for his nonappointment. The impugned order states that an adverse police verification report regarding character and antecedents have been received in the case of the appellant that two cases namely a case in Manamadurai Police Station Crime No.188 of 2010 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 302 of IPC and Manamadurai Police Station Crime No.294 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 342 and 506(1) of IPC. On account of the said adverse report, the appellant was informed that he could not be appointed as Fireman. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The Court held that while assessing the character and antecedent, since both cases have been taken and a decision has been arrived at, and since we have held that one of the cases that is Crime No.188 of 2010, in which, the petitioner is said to have involved in the offence when he was a juvenile, cannot be taken into account at all, we are unable to sustain the order impugned in the writ petition and consequently the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld. The Court had given certain directions.

  • The order passed by the learned Single in W.P.(MD)No.11110 of2020, dated 24.03.2022 shall stand set aside.
  • The order of the second respondent dated 27.07.2020 impugned inthe writ petition is set aside.
  • The first and second respondents through the concernedcommittee shall review the case of the appellant by considering the case in Crime No.294 of 2019 alone and shall independently take a decision as to the suitability of the petitioner with reference to the Rules in force as on the relevant date.
  • Needless to say that if the petitioner is found eligible, he shall beforthwith appointed and be included in the next batch of training in which case, the petitioner will be entitled for all the benefits from the date of  However, his seniority will be on the bottom of the batch in which the petitioner was selected.
  • If the committee still finds the petitioner is ineligible, the said ordershall be duly communicated to him.
  • The entire exercise shall be carried on within a period of threemonths from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Once the Will was probated, it cannot be questioned unless it is revoked by Appellate Forum says Madras High Court.

blog, Blog , , , , ,

Case Title:

The President, Sri Bhagavatha Thithiyaradhanai Committee     

 Versus

THIRU.JEEYAR.

Date of Decision:    Reserved On 07.06.2023.

                                Pronounced On 10.07.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI.

Citation: C.R.P(PD)(MD).Nos.845,846 and C.M.P(MD)No.3705 of 2018.

Introduction:

The revision petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nanguneri against the revision respondent for the reliefs of permanent injunction. The revision respondent filed a written statement and both side adduced their respective oral and documentary evidence and the suit is pending for argument. At the stage of argument, the revision petitioner has filed a petition in I.A.No.132 of 2018 to reopen the case and the petition in I.A.No.133 of 2018 to send for documents from the Sub Registrar. The respondent resisted both applications. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court has dismissed both the petitions on 21.03.2018. Aggrieved by the orders of the Trial Court, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of these respective Civil Revision Petitions.

Facts:

Petitioner has argued that the suit property belonged to Venugopala Ramanuja Dass and he had constructed “Sri Venugopala Ramanuja Koodam” to perform Bhajans and to provide food and shelter during festivals by forming Sri Bhagavatha Thithiyaradhanai Committee. After his demise on 09.06.1966, the said committee continued the charities. The suit property is under the possession of the plaintiff. Since the defendant interfered with possession, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendant claimed right over the suit property by virtue of Will dated 07.06.1966 allegedly executed by Venugopala Ramanuja Dass in his favour and Will was permitted to be received as per order in I.A.No.1202 of 2017. The plaintiff contended that the said Venugopal could not execute any Will and it might be forged one. The said Venugopal has already executed a mortgage deed under Document No.3362/60 and the mortgage receipt in the year 1961. The signature found in Will belonged to testator or not
would be ascertained by sending the document to handwriting expert. Therefore, those documents along with Will have to be sent from the concerned Registrar and the same have to be sent for obtaining expert opinion. The Trial Court without considering the facts has passed erroneous order and these Civil Revision Petitions may be allowed.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

It is clear that the revision petitioner filed the main suit against the respondent for the reliefs of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The suit property originally belonged to Venugopala Ramanuja Dass, who constructed a mutt for providing shelter and food during the festival and also formed a plaintiff committee to administer it. The revision respondent contended that the said Venugopala Ramanuja Dass executed the Will in his favour 50 years back and after demise of Venugopala Ramanuja Dass, the Will was probated before the Court of law in O.P.No.31 of 1968. The plaintiff has not denied it. The plaintiff has not contended that the probate was revoked. Therefore, since the Will was probated, it would bind all the parties. There is no dispute that the suit is pending for argument stage after adducing both side evidences. As the suit is reached the final stage, the plaintiff has filed the petitions to reopen for sending the Will to signature expert as the Will could not be executed by the Venugopala Ramanuja Dass, which is not acceptable one. Once the Will was probated, it cannot be questioned unless it is revoked by Appellate Forum or through subsequent proceedings. It is pertinent to note here that the main suit is only for permanent injunction. It is not filed for claiming title over the suit property. Therefore, the observation of the Trial Court that the plaintiff filed the present petitions to further drag on the suit properties is upheld and the impugned orders of the Trial Court do not warrant interference. Thus, the Civil Revision Petitions fail and the same are liable to be dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement