Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

05.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON

26.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

Writ Petition Nos.33043 of 2024

and 22758, 24052, 22754, 22750, 22753, 24056, 24062,

25279 & 22747 of 2025

and W.M.P.Nos.41640, 46309, 25575, 27071, 27076, 25587, 27080,

28454, 35809, 25578, 25582 & 25585 of 2025

Writ Petition Nos.33043 of 2024

1.Government of Puducherry

By its Chief Secretary,

Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue,

Puducherry – 605 001.

2.Government of Puducherry,

By its Director General of Police,

Police Department, Puducherry – 605 001.

3.Government of Puducherry,

By SP Head Quarters,

Police Department, Puducherry – 605 001.

4.Government of Puducherry,

1/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

By OSD (Officer on Special Duty),

Police Department, Puducherry – 605 001. ... Petitioners

Vs

1.The Registrar,

Central Administrative Tribunal,

Madras Bench, Chennai – 600 108.

2.Arul Antony J

3.Manogaran R

4.Jagadish P.

5.Kannan

6.Silambarasan V

7.Nirmal N

8.Charles G

9.Kaviarasan P

10.Raghunath C

11.Selvavinayagam P

12.Mayakrishnan M

13.Md. Sheik Dawood

14.Sabary P

15.Raguvaran R

16.Vijayabaskar

17.Sithambalam M

18.Praveen Kumar S

19.Deivendiran N

20.Arumugam P

21.Rajasekar

22.Kalaivanthan N

23.Raj Mohan

24.Boopathy P

25.Ayyanar S

26.Dineshkumar J

27.Vedapriyan

28.Sundararaman E

29.Sivakumar L

30.Govindan S

2/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

31.Karthikeyan D

32.Vinoth M

33.Murugaiyan K

34.Rajesh N

35.Rajesh R

36.Santhamurthy S

37.Kalimuthu R

38.Mohandass P

39.Balamurugan P

40.Ramachandiran P

41.Tamilselvam D

42.Jayamani K

43.Balamurugan D

44.Ariharan A

45.Jegadeesan D

46.Ezhilarasan R

47.Deenadayalan A

48.Soundhararaj I

49.Thirunavukarasan V

50.Murugan V

51.Sivakumar K

52.Anbarasan @ Pugazendhi A

53.Arun J

54.Manikandan

55.Lyautey Gouson P

56.Nirmalaanandhan N

57.Sivakumar

58.Parameswari A

59.Kalaivanan K

60.Manoji J

61.Karunagaran E

62.Sugumar S

63.Benjamine Frankline F

64.Jesintha F

65.Jayagopal K

66.Ramachandiran

67.Sivakumar D

68.Damodiran G

3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

69.Rajarathinam T

70.Anbarasan

71.Nimal PR

72.Ramji M

73.Balamohan S

74.Rajesh Kumar

75.Arulkumar M

76.Damodharan J

77.Anbarasan

78.Prakash A

79.Sathiyamurthy K

80.Vettriselvan L

81.Sabarathinam D

82.Vasanthkumar

83.Stalin L

84.Ramachandiran

85.Deivendraraj

86.Karunakaran

87.Mathesmenan

88.Johngoloth L

89.Roman G

90.Pradeep G

91.K.Sakthivelu

92.Harishkumar

93.Senthil Kumar K

94.Lohidas Dhayala

95.Dhamodaran

96.Sivashankaran

97.Manikandan

98.Bharath

99.Vinoth Kumar V

100.Ayyanar T

101.Manikandan

102.Kumaravel R

103.Rubakannan L

104.Mani Bharathi K

105.Vinod Kumar V

106.Mohd. Hajakuthubudee S

4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

107.Thangaraj R

108.Puruchottamane S

109.Kuppazhagar R

110.Prabu V

111.Janarthanan

112.Selvam E

113.Gnanasekaran P

114.Madhivanan K

115.Manikandan S

116.Sathish S

117.Vazhumuny I

118.Sankaran M

119.Gogulakrishnan S

120.Gopalakrishnan

121.Ilakkiyavendhan

121.Ganapathy P

123.Pragash P

124.Arunagiri I

125.Mohanraj R

126.Vinothkumar

127.Sa sikumar S

128.Prabaharan A

129.Irusavel E

130.Vengadapathy G

131.Karunakaran R

132.Gunasegaran A

133.Periyasamy P

134.Selvam

135.Kamalraj K

136.Batmanaban

137.Mathivanan

138.Roshith Parammal

139.Manikandan N

140.Rajesh P

141.Jenifer F

142.Balamurugan K

143.Chandirasekar E

144.Selvakumaran G

5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

145.Ilakiyaventhan D

146.Jaganathan J

147.Rajavel K

148.Ramalingam M

149.Viyayan D

150.Ananthakrishnan D

151.Ramki R

152.Prabakaran

153.Muthukumaran

154.Manjini

155.Balachandar K

156.Arjun E

157.Karthikeyan K

158.Pankumar P

159.Ashokan D

160.Sankeetharaj K

161.Anand V

162.Ragavendiran C

163.Jaison Bolivea F

164.Kaliyaperumal

165.Selvaraj C

166.Dessinkou

167.Iyyappan P

168.Neelamegakannan

169.Kathavarayan

170.Rangaperumal Raja K

171.Dunesh Kumar M

172.Sivaraj N

173.Rajasekar V

174.Ravindrane

175.Kalainithi A

176.Jepi M

177.Arikaran V

178.Karthik S

179.Buvaneswaran S

180.Pavadaisamy G

181.Jayabal N

182.Egalaivan

6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

183.Jayasittira K

184.Murugavel

185.Rangaraj

186.Udhayakumar M

187.Parthiban S

188.Muruganadan J

189.Chitravel B

190.Ganapathy

191.Ravichandiran A

192.Ravichandran K

193.Jayachandiran N

194.Arunmani

195.Dinesh

196.Vinoth V

197.Iyyappan S

198.Raja G

199.Rajaprabu R

200.Velmurugan G

201.Surendar

202.Ramarajan K

203.Loganathan

204.Seetha S

205.Durga Prasad Chodi

206.Ganga Raju K

207.Sattibabu K

208.Pemmadi Kesawa Rao

209.Rekadi Manikanta

210.Naveenkanth

211.Krishnarjunudu G

212.Lovaraju Mellam

213.Subramanyam PV

214.Vikram Dharma K

215.Ramadass L

216.Parandaman P

217.Premraj R

218.Bremkumar V

219.Gottumukkala Manikanta Raju G ... Respondents

7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records

pertaining to the order passed in O.A.No.1043 of 2022, dated 21.04.2023

passed by the first respondent and quash the same and to pass such further

order.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan

( in all W.Ps) Additional Solicitor General of India

assisted by Mr.R.Syed Mustafa

Special Government Pleader (Puducherry)

For R1

(in W.P.No.33043 of 2024): Tribunal

For RR2 to 219

(in W.P.No.33043 of 2024) : Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan

for M/s.TVJ Associates

For Respondents in

other W.Ps : No appearance

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)

These present writ petitions have been filed challenging the common

order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Tribunal in ten Original Applications,

whereby age relaxation was granted to the applicants on account of the

COVID-19 pandemic period for the post of Sub Inspector.

2) A recruitment notification bearing No.1-2/A2/Estt-1(A)/POL/2022

8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

dated 08.11.2022 was issued for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of

Police. Pursuant to the said notification, the Original Applications were filed

before the Tribunal seeking age relaxation for the COVID-19 pandemic lock

down period, by both candidates who applied under open competition and

in-service contending that no recruitment had been conducted for the post of

Sub-Inspector for the past 12 years, thereby depriving them of the

opportunity to apply within the prescribed age limit. The in-service

candidate has further sought for applying the age relaxation on communal

basis. The Tribunal, at the initial stage, passed an interim order provisionally

permitting the petitioners to participate in the recruitment process and

further directed the authorities to withhold the declaration of results and

await the outcome of the Original Applications. Upon final adjudication, the

Tribunal allowed the Original Applications and granted age relaxation the

ground that similarly situated persons belonging to the same class had

already been granted age relaxation for the COVID-19 pandemic period and

also extended age concession for in-service candidates on communal basis.

Portion of the order benefiting the in-service candidate was implemented by

issuance of notification dated 12.08.2025. Aggrieved by the said common

order of the Tribunal, relating to COVID 19 relaxation, the present writ

9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

petitions have been filed by the authorities.

3) Heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties.

4) The learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioners would

submit that the post of Sub-Inspector of Police falls under Group ‘B’ (Non-

Gazetted) category. He contends that age relaxation for such posts can be

granted only with the approval of the Union Public Service Commission and

the Government of Puducherry and does not fall within the purview of the

respondent Department. It is further submitted that age relaxation is not a

matter of right.

5) He would further submits that as per the Recruitment Rules, 50%

of the vacancies are reserved for in-service candidates and the remaining

50% for direct recruitment. He contends that the police force being a

disciplined force, physical fitness and youthfulness are essential

requirements, and age plays a crucial role in determining the suitability of

candidates.

10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

6) It is further submitted that after the Tribunal’s common order, since

the Government of Puducherry is a Union Territory Administration, any

policy decision requires approval from the Government of India through the

nodal Ministry. Accordingly, the proposal for age relaxation was forwarded

to the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, on 06.12.2023. The Ministry of

Home Affairs, by its communication dated 07.05.2024, declined to grant age

relaxation. Therefore, once the competent authority has taken a decision, the

Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the matter of policy decision.

7) The learned counsel further submits that the Police Department has

decided to cancel the recruitment notification for 60 Sub-Inspector posts

bearing No.1-2/A2/Estt-1(A)/POL/2022 dated 08.11.2022 and to issue a

fresh notification.

8) It is further submitted that while rejecting the proposal for age

relaxation, the Ministry of Home Affairs observed that granting age

relaxation for Group ‘C’ posts without the concurrence of the Department of

Personnel and Training was itself void ab initio and advised the Government

of Puducherry to challenge the Tribunal’s order in accordance with law. It is

11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

contended that the respondents have failed to implead the competent

authorities, which omission is fatal to their case. The learned counsel further

submits that in the event of any conflict between statutory rules, the

principle of harmonious construction is to be applied. However, harmonious

construction cannot be invoked to override statutory requirements or

conscious policy decisions taken by competent authorities. He further

submits that failure to amend the Recruitment Rules in line with Pay

Commission recommendations cannot be a ground to confer benefits

contrary to law.

9) In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the judgment

of the High Court of Kerala in O.P.(CAT) No.3703 of 2012 dated

04.07.2024, wherein it was held that failure to perform the ministerial act of

amendment should not lead to denial of higher pay scale otherwise

legitimately available under applicable re-classification or pay scale rules.

The learned counsel further contends that the power of relaxation is required

to be exercised sparingly and in public interest, depending upon the facts of

each case, and that a generalised interpretation cannot be given to a rule

providing for relaxation of age. He further submits that pursuant to the

12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

recruitment notification, certain candidates may not have applied, believing

themselves to be age-barred, and therefore, the benefit of relaxation cannot

be extended retrospectively to the detriment of such candidates. In this

regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in 1997 (6)

SCC 614.

10) He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh and Others v. Dr. H.

Nabachandra Singh and Others reported in 2020 (20) SCC 312, wherein it

was held that prescription of eligibility criteria lies within the exclusive

domain of the employer and that no candidate can claim relaxation as a

matter of right. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this

Court in N.S. Sivakumar v. Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in 2020 (2) CTC 241, and contended

that mere loss of opportunity on account of delay in conducting

examinations, in the absence of any mala fides, cannot by itself be a ground

to reinterpret existing rules or to introduce further relaxation in age to the

benefit of candidates. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the respondents’

13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

contentions. Hence, he prays that the writ petitions be allowed.

11) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

Government of Puducherry had already granted age relaxation of two years

as a one-time measure for the COVID-19 pandemic for Group ‘C’ posts. He

contends that similar age relaxation was granted for Police Constable and

Driver (PD) Grade-III posts, which also fall under Group ‘C’. It is further

submitted that the COVID-19 pandemic affected the entire population

globally and that even higher judicial forums extended periods of limitation

uniformly across all categories. Therefore, granting age relaxation only to

Group ‘C’ posts and excluding Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts is arbitrary and

unreasonable.

12) The learned counsel further submits that the Recruitment Rules

framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India classify the post of

Sub-Inspector as a Group ‘C’ post. He contends that most of the respondents

are overaged only by a few months or years and that if two years of age

relaxation for the COVID-19 period is granted along with communal

relaxation, they would fall within the prescribed age limit. He further

14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

submits that recruitment is based on merit and that mere participation does

not guarantee selection.

13) He further submits that the Government of Maharashtra was

directed to grant age relaxation for the COVID-19 pandemic period by the

High Court of Bombay in Jyoti Kashinathrao Sadavarte v. State of

Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 4286. He

also placed reliance on various Government Orders issued by the

Governments of Nagaland and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, wherein age

relaxation of two years was granted for direct recruitment, including to

Group ‘B’ posts. The learned counsel further drew attention to the Judicial

Service Recruitment Notification of the year 2023 for the post of Civil

Judge, wherein a two-year age relaxation was granted to candidates on

account of the COVID-19 pandemic, and contended that denial of similar

relaxation to the respondents would be arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence,

he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.

14) Mr. Gnanasekaran, learned counsel for the respondents, submits

15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

that while age relaxation was granted for Group ‘C’ posts, it was denied for

Sub-Inspector posts, and such selective relaxation lacks a rational nexus,

thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He contends that

reasonable classification must satisfy the test of intelligible differentia and

rational nexus, failing which it would be unconstitutional.

15) Replying to the above submissions, the learned Additional

Solicitor General for the petitioners reiterates that the post of Sub-Inspector

of Police falls under Group ‘B’ and not Group ‘C’. He submits that the

classification is reasonable since age relaxation for Group ‘C’ posts can be

granted by the Government of Puducherry, whereas for Group ‘B’ non-

gazetted posts, concurrence of UPSC and approval of the Government of

India are mandatory. He further submits that though the Recruitment Rules

describe the post as Group ‘C’, the actual classification must be determined

based on the pay scale and functional hierarchy. Hence, the claim of parity

with Group ‘C’ posts is untenable.

16) We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel of the

respective parties and perused the material available on records.

16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

17) The claim of all the private respondents in these Writ Petitions

was with regard to the grant of age relaxation on 2 counts. The Tribunal

under the impugned orders had entertained the claim made by the private

respondents and had directed relaxation of age on 2 counts. With regard to

the grant of age relaxation based on communal basis to in-service

candidates, the direction issued by the Tribunal had been implemented. A

corrigendum had been issued to that effect. Hence, the only issue that looms

upon this Court is with regard to the age relaxation of two years for COVID

period.

18) It is the case of the petitioners that the post of Sub-Inspector falls

within Group-B cadre and the same had been in clear terms indicated in the

notification for the recruitment itself. Hence, the policy of the Government

for providing age relaxation of 2 years for Covid period in respect of Group-

C post cannot be extended, but on the other hand, reliance had been placed

upon various Government orders wherein, such extensions have been

granted by the Government of Nagaland, Administration of Andaman and

17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

Nicobar Islands and the Government of Puducherry in respect of Group-C

post, Civil Judges and for recruitment of Group-B and Group-C in

Puducherry Judicial Subordinate services. Judgments have also been relied

upon by the private respondents wherein age relaxation was also accepted in

certain recruitment process. This had been countered by the petitioners by

placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard

to the perrogative of the Government for fixing the eligibility criteria, apart

from the judgment of this Court in the context that a mere loss of

opportunity on account of delay in conducting the examination in absence of

any malafides cannot by itself be a ground to re-interpret the existing Rule

for further relaxation of age to benefit the candidates.

19) Reliance placed upon the Government Orders of other

Governments cannot be applied when a particular Government takes a

conscious policy decision. It is to be noted that the Government of

Puducherry had issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.50, to grant

upper age relaxation by two years over and above the upper age limit

prescribed under the Recruitment Rules only with regard to direct

recruitments in Group-C post as an one time measure. It had also been

18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

argued by Additional Solicitor General of India as relaxation of age limit to

the Recruitment Rules to the Group-C post, concurrence of the UPSC and

the Union Government is not required, but however with regard to the

relaxation of Group-B & Group-A such concurrence is required and it has

also been brought on record that the proposal for age relaxation had been

rejected by the Union Government. The notification that had been relied

upon by the petitioners in respect of Group-B & Group-C in Puducherry

Judicial Services, it is to be noted that such age relaxation had been granted

only in confirmity with the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.50, dated

29.07.2022. The Recruitment notification that had been placed on record is a

combined Recruitment notification for Group-B & Group-C posts. In such

an event, that relaxation that had been extended based upon the said

Government Order would only mean the age relaxation to Group-C posts

and not Group-B posts in the said notification.

20) It has also been brought on record that under the guidelines

issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance

and Pension Department, (Department of Personnel & Training)

encompassing various Office Memorandum that stood as on 06.09.2022,

19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

there would be no age relaxation for the Recruitment to Group-A & Group-

B on the basis competitive examination except in the cases where it had

been specifically provided for the scheme of examinations approved in

consultation with the Commission.

21) Even though it had been contended by the private respondents that

under the Recruitment Rules, post of SI had been only classified as only

Group-C post, it is to be noted that the said post as notified under the

notification were declared to be Group-B post and the reasonings attributed

by the learned Additional Solicitor General as to how the post of SI would

fall under Group-B post, we are of the view that the post of SI would only

be a Group-B post and not Group-C post as contended by the learned

counsels appearing for the private respondents.

22) In such view of the matter, the benefits that had been granted

under the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.50, which was a policy decision

taken by the Government of Puducherry only relate to Group-C post cannot

be extended to a Group-B post particularly, when there is a bar for the

Government of Puducherry to grant age relaxation to a Group-B post

20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

without the consultation of the UPSC. In this case, it has also been brought

on record that the UPSC as well as the Union Government had rejected the

proposals of the Government of Puducherry to grant age relaxation based on

Covid Pandemic for the Recruitment of SI. Hence, we cannot find any fault

on the Government of Puducherry in not granting age relaxation of two

years.

23) A thorough perusal of the judgments that had been relied upon by

the learned counsel for the private respondents in support of their

contention, it could be seen that in each of the judgments there has been a

policy decision taken by the Government for grant of such age relaxation

and regarding the same orders were passed to issue corrigendum indicating

that the relaxation of age to the Recruitment notification and proceed

thereafter. Hence, such judgments in the absence of any policy decision

taken by the Government of Puducherry to extend relaxation of upper age

limit to Group-B post cannot be made applicable to the present case on

hand. Even in the Recruitment notification for the Judicial Officers, reliance

had been placed upon a Government Order taking a policy decision to relax

two years of upper age limit for such Recruitment.

21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

24) It cannot be disputed that it would be within the domain of an

employer to prescribe the eligibility criteria. It is to be further noticed that

originally a Recruitment Notification was issued in the year 2022 based

upon which applications was also received, but however it was not

processed for one reason or the other and further notification in the year

2025 came to be issued also permitting the applicants who had applied

earlier to also participate in the 2025 notification, even though some of the

applicants in the notification of the year 2022 would have been over aged

when the notification was issued in the year 2025.

25) The Recruitment Rules for the post of SI had been placed on

record and Schedule II appended to the said notification would indicate that

age limit for direct recruits to be between 20 & 27 years. The said

recruitment Rule do not provide for any relaxation of the said age. The

relaxation that had been granted for various reserved categories had been

made by notification dated 27.03.2012. This would mean that there is no

scheme for age relaxation. It is useful to note a judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in a batch of cases relating to the Recruitment to the

22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

post of Teachers relied upon by the petitioner, the Recruitment Rules with

regard to appointment of Teachers had provided a power for relaxation of

any of the contingencies of the said Recruitment Rules. In the said cases,

there had been a direction for age relaxation by the Central Administrative

Tribunal. The said Division Bench had held that when upper age limit had

been prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and if a policy decision has

been taken for relaxing the said Rules for reserved categories, then such

relaxation can be given to only such reserved categories. Upholding the

direction issued by the Tribunal, to give such relaxation by exercising the

power of relaxation, the Division Bench had held that the direction given by

the Tribunal by making the classification of its own was not proper and it

should have left it open to the authorities exercising such power of

relaxation.

26) In the present case, the direction to grant relaxation of two years

had been directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal under the

impugned order when the Recruitment Rules have provided a particular age

criteria and without any scheme of relaxation, hence such direction

according to us is wholly erroneous.

23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

27) For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions stand allowed and the

impugned orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal insofar as it relates

to grant of relaxation of two years of Covid Pandemic alone is set aside.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. However,

there shall be no order as to costs.

(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)

26.02.2026

Index: Yes/No

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

Gba

To

The Registrar,

Central Administrative Tribunal,

Madras Bench, Chennai – 600 104.

24/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.33043 of 2024 & etc., batch

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN ., J.

and

K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.

Gba

A Pre-delivery judgment made in

Writ Petition Nos.33043 of 2024

and 22758, 24052, 22754, 22750, 22753, 24056, 24062,

25279 & 22747 of 2025

and W.M.P.Nos.41640, 46309, 25575, 27071, 27076, 25587, 27080,

28454, 35809, 25578, 25582 & 25585 of 2025

26.02.2026

25/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis