WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 24.02.2026, 27.02.2026, 29.06.2026

DELIVERED ON : 23.07.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

WP(MD)Nos.29546 to 29549, 29943, 31354, 31357, 31430, 31431 of 2024;

782, 801, 1049, 1141, 1319, 1409, 5704, 5705, 36374 of 2025;

3214, 4738 of 2026

and

WMP(MD)No.24914, 24916, 24920 to 24925, 25225, 26249, 26250, 26255,

26257, 26316 to 26319 of 2024;

504, 505, 521, 523, 661, 665, 769, 959, 962, 996, 997, 28949, 28950 of 2025;

2647, 4038 of 2026

WP(MD)Nos.29546 to 29548 of 2024:-

G.Premkumar : Petitioner in WP(MD).29546/24

S.Veilumuthu : Petitioner in WP(MD).29547/24

C.Santhanakumar : Petitioner in WP(MD).29548/24

Vs.

The Executive Officer,

Mukkudal Selection Grade Town Panchayat,

Tirunelveli. : Respondent in all WPs

1/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

COMMON PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for

the records of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.356/2024/A1, dated

29.11.2024 and quash the same.

WP(MD)No.29549 of 2024:-

A.Sivakumar : Petitioner

Vs.

The Executive Officer,

Mukkudal Selection Grade Town Panchayat,

Tirunelveli. : Respondent

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the

respondent in Na.Ka.No.148/2015/A1 dated 29.11.2024 and quash the

same.

2/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

WP(MD)No.29943 of 2024:-

P.Thillai : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Town Panchayat,

Urban Administrative Buildings,

No.75, Santhome High Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.

2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,

Tirunelveli Zone,

Tirunelveli.

3.The Executive Officer,

Achanpudur 1

st

Grade Town Panchayat,

Achanpudur,

Kadayanallur Taluk,

Tenkasi District. : Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the

records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent

in Na.Ka.No.10/2015 dated 29.11.2024, quash the same and

consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with

continuity of service and full backwages.

3/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

WP(MD)No.31354 of 2024:-

M.Krishnasamy : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Town Panchayat,

Urban Administrative Buildings,

No.75, Santhome High Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.

2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,

Tirunelveli Zone,

Tirunelveli.

3.The Executive Officer,

Pudur(S) 1

st

Grade Town Panchayat,

Pudur,

Tenkasi District. : Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the

records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent

in Na.Ka.No.41/2006 dated 29.11.2024, quash the same and

consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the

post of Sanitary Worker with continuity of service and full backwages.

4/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

WP(MD)No.31357 of 2024:-

R.Samy : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Town Panchayat,

Urban Administrative Buildings,

No.75, Santhome High Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.

2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,

Tirunelveli Zone,

Tirunelveli.

3.The Executive Officer,

Pudur(S) 1

st

Grade Town Panchayat,

Pudur,

Tenkasi District. : Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the

records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent

in Na.Ka.No.41/2006 dated 29.11.2024, quash the same and

consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the

post of Sanitary Worker with continuity of service and full backwages.

5/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

WP(MD)No.31430 of 2024:-

G.Suresh : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Town Panchayat,

Urban Administrative Buildings,

No.75, Santhome High Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.

2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,

Tirunelveli Zone,

Tirunelveli.

3.The Executive Officer,

Vadakarai Kilpidagai Town Panchayat,

Vadakarai Kilpidagai,

Tenkasi District. : Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the

records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent

in Na.Ka.No.388/2015 dated 29.11.2024, quash the same and

consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the

post of Sanitary Worker with continuity of service and full backwages.

6/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

WP(MD)No.31431 of 2024:-

N.Jayakumar : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Town Panchayat,

Urban Administrative Buildings,

No.75, Santhome High Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.

2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,

Tirunelveli Zone,

Tirunelveli.

3.The Executive Officer,

Pudur (S) 1

st

Grade Town Panchayat,

Pudur,

Tenkasi District.

4.The Executive Officer,

Vadakku Valliyur Special Grade Town Panchayat,

Vadakku Valliyur,

Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the

records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent

in Na.Ka.No.41/2006 dated 29.11.2024, quash the same and

7/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the

post of Sanitary Worker with continuity of service and full backwages.

WP(MD)Nos.782, 801, 1319 of 2025:-

Sirajudeen : Petitioner in WP(MD).782/25

S.Kamalanathan : Petitioner in WP(MD).801/25

V.Sudalaimuthu : Petitioner in WP(MD).1319/25

Vs.

1.The Assistant Director (Town Panchayat),

Tirunelveli,

Tirunelveli District.

2.The Executive Officer,

Manimutharu Special Grade Town Panchayat,

Manimutharu – 627 421,

Tirunelveli District. : Respondents in all WPs

COMMON PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for

the records relating to the impugned proceedings passed by the second

respondent in Na.Ka.No.331/2015/A1 dated 29.11.2024 and quash the

same.

8/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

WP(MD)No.1049 of 2025:-

A.Manikandan : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Assistant Director (Town Panchayat),

Tirunelveli,

Tirunelveli District.

2.The Executive Officer,

Veeravanallur Town Panchayat,

Veeravanallur,

Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to

the impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent in

Na.Ka.No.123-1/2015/A1 dated 29.11.2024 and quash the same.

WP(MD)No.1141 of 2025:-

T.Saravanan : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director,

Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply,

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

9/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

2.The Commissioner,

Srivilliputhur Municipality,

Virudhunagar District.

3.The Commissioner,

Ambasamuthiram Municipality,

Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to

the impugned second charge memo in Na.Ka.No.196/2015/C1 dated

13.09.2024 and its enquiry report dated 15.10.2024 and the consequential

show cause notice dated 29.11.2024 issued by the third respondent and

quash the same.

WP(MD)No.1409 of 2025:-

A.Sudalaisekar : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Assistant Director (Town Panchayat),

Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Executive Officer,

Veeravanallur Town Panchayat,

Veeravanallur,

Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

10/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to

the impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent in

Na.Ka.No.123/2015/A1 dated 29.11.2024 and quash the same.

WP(MD)Nos.5704, 5705 of 2025:-

M.Shanmugasundari : Petitioner in WP(MD).5704/25

Velladurai : Petitioner in WP(MD).5705/25

Vs.

1.The Director / Commissioner,

Municipal Administration,

Santhome High Road,

MRC Nagar,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai - 28.

2.The Commissioner,

Puliyankudi Municipality,

Tirunelveli District. : Respondents in both WPs

COMMON PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for

11/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

the records relating to the impugned proceedings passed by the second

respondent in Na.Ka.No.1398/2015/C1 dated 27.12.2024 and quash the

same.

WP(MD)No.36374 of 2025:-

M.Sudalaikani : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Municipal Administration,

No.75, Urban Administrative Building,

Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.

2.The District Collector,

Collectorate,

then Tirunelveli District,

now Tenkasi District.

3.The Municipal Commissioner,

Kadayanallur Municipality,

then Tirunelveli District,

now Tenkasi District. : Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the

records relating to the impugned order of termination passed by the

12/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

third respondent in Na.Ka.No.3244/2015/C1 dated 05.06.2017, the

consequential order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.

18289/2017/K3-1 dated 12.07.2024, quash the same and consequently,

directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all

attendant and monetary benefits as Junior Assistant in Kadayanallur

Municipality, Tenkasi District.

WP(MD)No.3214 of 2026:-

C.Karpagavinayagam : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Town Panchayat,

Kuralagam,

Chennai – 600 108.

2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,

NGO Colony,

Tirunelveli.

3.Panagudi Special Grade Town Panchayat,

Rep. by the Executive Officer,

Panagudi,

Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

13/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to

the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.

509/2016 dated 29.11.2024 and quash the same.

WP(MD)No.4738 of 2026:-

U.Sorimuthu : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Director of Town Panchayat,

Tirunelveli.

2.The Executive Officer,

Special Grade Town Panchayat,

Thisayanvilai,

Tirunelveli District.

3.The Executive Officer,

Selection Grade Town Panchayat,

Naranammalpuram,

Tirunelveli.

4.The District Employment Officer,

Employment Exchange,

Tirunelveli.

14/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

5.The Secretary to Government,

Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department,

Secretariat,

Chennai.

: Respondents

[R.5 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 23.07.2026]

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the

records relating to the impugned proceedings passed by the second

respondent in Na.Ka.No.59-3/2016 dated 29.11.2024, quash the same

and consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in

service.

15/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

Appearances:-

For Petitioner(s):-

WP(MD)Nos.29546 to 29549 of 2024

: Mr.V.Vijay Shankar

WP(MD)Nos.29943, 31354, 31357, 31430, 31431 of 2024

: Mr.R.Prem Narayanan

WP(MD)Nos.782, 801, 1049, 1319, 1409 of 2025

: Mr.G.Karthick

for M/s.Roy & Roy Associates

WP(MD)No.1141 of 2025

: Mr.D.Nallathambi

WP(MD)Nos.5704, 5705 of 2025

: Mr.S.Chellapandian

WP(MD)No.36374 of 2025

: Mr.M.Saravanakumar

WP(MD)No.3214 of 2026

: Mr.S.Palanivelayutham

WP(MD)No.4738 of 2026

: Mr.K.K.Udhayakumar

16/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

For Respondents:-

On 24.02.2026 & 27.02.2026:-

Mr.Veera Kathiravan,

Additional Advocate General

Assisted by

Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,

Additional Government Pleader

for Government

in WP(MD)Nos.29546 to 29549, 29943,

31354, 31357, 31430, 31431 of 2024;

782, 801, 1049, 1319, 1409, 5704,

5705, 36374 of 2025; 3214 of 2026

and

Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,

Special Government Pleader

for Government in WP(MD)No.4738 of 2026

Mr.P.Srinivas for R.2 &

Mr.S.Packiamuthu for R.3 in WP(MD)No.1141 of 2025

Mr.K.P.Baduras Zaman,

Government Advocate for R.3 in WP(MD)No.3214 of 2026

*****

On 29.06.2026:-

Mr.S.Sivasubramanian,

Counsel for State of TN (Civil Side)

for Government in all WPs

*****

17/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

COMMON ORDER

The petitioners were recruited as Sanitary Workers, Overhead

Tank Operators, Overhead Tank Watchmen, Electricians and Junior

Assistants on a temporary basis at various Town Panchayats and

Municipalities in the Tirunelveli District from the year 2005 till 2015.

Their recruitment was carried out by calling for candidates from the

District Employment Exchange which has forwarded their names as

physically disabled candidates under the priority quota.

2.One Dr.V.Chandrasekaran, a Civil Assistant Surgeon, has lodged

a complaint on 25.05.2015 that he has noticed a fake National Disability

Card purportedly issued by the Differently Abled Welfare Department

based on his forged signature and seal of the hospital. On the basis of the

same, an FIR was registered in Crime No.85 of 2015 by the Tirunelveli

Medical College Hospital Police Station for the offences under Sections

466, 468, 471, 473, 474, 476, 420 and 120(b) IPC. While investigating the

same, the Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital

18/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

Police Station, sent a communication on 01.06.2015 informing the

Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Tirunelveli that several persons

have obtained appointments, using fake disability certificates across all

Town Panchayats and Municipalities in Tirunelveli District between the

years 2005 and 2015. In response to the same, the Assistant Director of

Town Panchayats, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2120/2015/P2 dated

05.06.2015, consolidated the relevant service details and it was found

that 103 individuals had been appointed under the priority category for

physically disabled persons during the relevant period.

3.In light of the above allegations, a review meeting was convened

by the District Collector, Tirunelveli on 27.08.2015 and a direction was

issued to the Executive Officers of the respective Town Panchayats and

Municipalities to refer all the candidates appointed under the priority

quota for physically disabled persons to a medical board for verifying

their disability. Thereafter, medical examination of the candidates was

carried out and it was found that only 25 candidates were physically

disabled out of the 103 individuals appointed under the priority quota

19/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

for physically disabled persons across 28 Town Panchayats and

Municipalities.

4.In the meantime, as per the proceedings of the Additional

Director General of Police, CB-CID, Chennai dated 01.09.2015, the

criminal case was transferred from the file of the Tirunelveli Medical

College Hospital Police Station to CB-CID, Tirunelveli and it was

renumbered as Crime No.3 of 2015 on 07.09.2015. During the

investigation, it was found that multiple recruitments were made at

various Town Panchayats and Municipalities in Tirunelveli on the basis

of fake disability certificates and there was an organized fraud. It was

also found that brokers and officials of the Town Panchayats and

Municipalities had facilitated such appointments. Further, forensic

comparison of the signatures of 22 Government Doctors with the forged

disability certificates revealed that 13 Government Doctors had issued

false medical certificates and assisted various persons in obtaining

National Disability Identity card. At present, the investigating agency

has identified a total of 187 Accused persons.

20/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

5.Consequently, in the year 2016, the respondent Town Panchayats

and Municipalities initiated disciplinary proceedings as against the

petitioners that they had unlawfully secured appointments against posts

reserved for the physically challenged priority category by furnishing

fake disability certificates to the District Employment Exchange. The

disciplinary proceedings was concluded holding that the petitioners

were accommodated in priority posts, even though they were not

physically disabled and that all the charges were proved as against them.

Acting upon the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary

authority has passed final orders, terminating the petitioners from

service. Some of the petitioners have preferred appeals before the

Appellate Authority as against their termination orders which were also

dismissed. As against the show cause notice, disciplinary proceedings,

enquiry reports, consequent termination orders and the proceedings of

the appellate authority, the instant writ petitions are filed by the

respective petitioners.

21/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

6.Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is common, they

are taken up together and disposed by way of this common order

Contentions of the petitioners:

7.The case of the petitioners, as advanced by the respective learned

Senior Counsel / Counsel is that the termination orders were passed in a

mechanical manner and without considering the relevant materials.

Their contentions are summarized as under:-

(i) It is the common stand of the petitioners that they were not

appointed under the priority quota posts meant for the physically

disabled persons. They have never made any misrepresentation or fraud

during their selection process. The Town Panchayats and Municipalities

addressed the Employment Exchange to sponsor candidates, without

any explicit mention that they are for priority quota. Further, their

interview call letters or appointment orders did not explicitly classify

their selection as being made under the priority quota. Therefore, the

respondents cannot turn around and claim that these posts were priority

quota meant for the physically disabled persons.

22/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

(ii) The petitioners were subjected to medical examination prior to

their selection and were provided with medical fitness certificates.

Further, they also attended interviews conducted by the officials of the

Town Panchayats and Municipalities and no objections were raised by

the selection committee at the time of their selection.

(iii) The explanations of the petitioners were not extracted in the

enquiry report and considered in detail by the enquiry officer. Further,

there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in issuing the charge

memos and concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the

enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner and was violative of the

principles of natural justice.

(iv) The Enquiry Officer did not examine any independent

witnesses during the enquiry. Therefore, a fair enquiry was not

conducted before passing the impugned orders.

23/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

8.Insofar as WP(MD)No.36374 of 2025 is concerned, challenging

the order of termination, the petitioner has contended that he was

appointed under the SC – Arunthathiyar category as per his

appointment order and not under the priority quota for physically

disabled persons. Further, he has contended that the impugned

termination order was passed without conducting any medical

examination on him.

9.Insofar as WP(MD)No.1141 of 2025 is concerned, challenging the

enquiry report and the show cause notice, the petitioner has taken a

stand that while initial medical examination on 16.03.2015 found that he

had no disability, he was once again sent for medical examination on

07.09.2016. After this examination, the Joint Director of Welfare (in

charge) has issued a certificate on 15.09.2016 that the petitioner has 40%

permanent disability in the hand and wrist and that he may be included

in the disability quota.

24/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

Common Contentions of Respondent Town Panchayats and

Municipalities:

10.Sum and substance of the submissions made on the side of the

respondents are as under:-

10.1The vacancies in question were specifically earmarked for

appointment under the priority category and notifications were issued,

as such, calling for candidates from the Employment Exchange .

Therefore, the petitioners cannot contend that the posts were general

category vacancies or that they would have been entitled to appointment

irrespective of the priority status claimed by them.

10.2.In order to secure the benefit of appointment under the

priority category, the petitioners obtained bogus disability identity cards

and disability certificates in connivance with certain officials and

medical practitioners. Armed with such certificates, they approached the

Employment Exchange and registered themselves as differently abled

persons. Acting upon the disability certificates produced by the

25/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

petitioners, the Employment Exchange sponsored their names for

appointment under the priority category.

10.3.The verification conducted by the Assistant Director of Town

Panchayats, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2120/2015/P2 dated

05.06.2015, revealed that 103 individuals had been appointed under the

priority category for disabled persons. The enquiry further disclosed that

all these candidates, including the petitioners, had secured appointment

on the strength of disability certificates forwarded through the

Employment Exchange. Subsequently, all the candidates were subjected

to examination by a duly constituted Medical Board. The Medical Board

found that only 25 out of the 103 candidates appointed across 28 Town

Panchayats were actually physically disabled. The petitioners were also

examined by the Medical Board, which confirmed that they were not

physically disabled. It was only thereafter that the impugned

proceedings came to be initiated and the impugned orders of

termination came to be passed.

26/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

10.4.Though liberty was granted to the petitioners to prefer

statutory appeals under Rule 230 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies

Establishment Rules, 2023, many of them, without exhausting the

alternative statutory remedy, have directly approached this Court by

filing the present writ petitions.

10.5.With regard to the alleged delay in initiating and concluding

the disciplinary proceedings, it was contended that the delay was

occasioned on account of the medical examination of the petitioners and

the pendency of the criminal investigation against them. The respondent

Town Panchayats and Municipalities had initially awaited the outcome

of the criminal proceedings. However, this Court, by orders dated

25.11.2024 and 05.12.2024 passed in WP(MD)No.19164 of 2024, directed

the authorities to proceed with the departmental proceedings without

waiting for the conclusion of the criminal prosecution. Further, one

R.Murthy of Rayagiri Town Panchayat, who was facing similar

allegations, had challenged the appointment of a Junior Assistant as the

27/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

Enquiry Officer by filing WP.No.14654 of 2016. This Court, by order

dated 11.08.2016, directed that the enquiry should be conducted only by

an officer in the cadre of Executive Officer Grade – II or an officer of a

higher rank. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings were thereafter

conducted by the competent authorities in accordance with law after

duly considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners.

10.6.The petitioners, by falsely projecting themselves as differently

abled persons, have deprived genuine candidates belonging to the

priority category of their rightful opportunity to secure public

employment. The CB-CID has completed its investigation and has

proposed to file the final report, in which most of the petitioners have

been arrayed as accused for their active involvement in fabricating and

using bogus disability certificates to secure appointments under the

priority category. Therefore, the petitioners, who obtained public

employment by misrepresentation and by producing forged documents,

cannot claim any equitable relief or seek continuance in service.

28/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

10.7.Apart from the above, it was further submitted that the

priority category as per G.O.Ms.No.188, Personnel and Administrative

Reforms (Personnel-P) Department dated 28.12.1976 is not confined to

differently abled persons alone. It comprises several categories,

including Ex-servicemen, wives of Ex-servicemen, legal heirs of freedom

fighters, destitute widows, repatriates from Burma and Sri Lanka,

persons who have donated land for Government projects, and differently

abled persons. In the cases on hand, though the respondent Town

Panchayats and Municipalities requisitioned candidates under the

priority category, the Employment Exchange sponsored only the names

of the petitioners for consideration as differently abled persons. No

candidates belonging to the other priority categories were sponsored.

Consequently, the petitioners were considered and appointed against

vacancies earmarked exclusively for the priority category on the basis of

the disability status falsely claimed by them.

11.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organised Crime Unit,

CB-CID, Tirunelveli, has filed a status report stating that a criminal case

29/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

in Crime No.3 of 2015 was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged

by Dr.V.Chandrasekar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Tirunelveli Medical

College Hospital. The investigation was initially carried out by the

Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital Police Station,

during which ten accused were arrested and their confession statements

were recorded. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by the

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai, who examined 20

witnesses, including medical officers attached to Tirunelveli Medical

College Hospital and officials of the Department for the Welfare of

Differently Abled Persons. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the

CB-CID, which, after completing the investigation, has filed the final

report arraying most of the petitioners as accused. It is further stated that

the fake National Disability Identity Cards allegedly used by the

petitioners were seized during the course of the investigation. The status

report also discloses that the investigation has revealed similar

appointments made in various Municipalities on the basis of fake

disability certificates and that further investigation in respect of those

appointments is presently under progress.

30/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

12.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival

submissions and also perused the materials.

13.Before examining the rival contentions, it is necessary to clarify

the scope of the present writ petitions. The question before this Court is

not whether the petitioners are criminally liable for the offences alleged

against them. Those issues fall exclusively within the domain of the

investigating agency and the competent criminal Court. The limited

question that arises for consideration is whether there existed sufficient

objective materials before the disciplinary authorities to reasonably

conclude that the petitioners had secured appointments against posts

earmarked for the physically disabled priority category by relying upon

disability documents which were subsequently found not to be genuine,

and whether the consequential disciplinary action suffers from

arbitrariness, mala fides or perversity warranting interference under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

31/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

WP(MD)Nos.29546 to 29549, 29943, 31354, 31357, 31430, 31431 of 2024;

782, 801, 1049, 1319, 1409, 5704, 5705 of 2025; 3214, 4738 of 2026:-

14.The petitioners were appointed in temporary posts at various

Town Panchayats and Municipalities in the Tirunelveli District during

the years 2005 till 2015. They were appointed by calling for names from

the Employment Exchange under the priority quota. The District

Employment Exchange has forwarded the names of the petitioners along

with their National Disability Cards and certificates that they were

physically disabled persons. They were also accommodated by the Town

Panchayats and Municipalities under the priority quota for the

physically disabled persons. Thereafter, an FIR in Crime No.85 of 2015

was registered based on the complaint of one Dr.V.Chandrasekaran, a

Civil Assistant Surgeon that a fake National Disability Card was issued

by the Differently Abled Welfare Department based on his forged

signature and seal of the hospital. The investigation of the same was

transferred to the CB-CID, Tirunelveli and a new FIR in Crime No.3 of

2015 was registered on 07.09.2015. The investigation agency found that

that multiple recruitments were made at various Town Panchayats and

32/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

municipalities in Tirunelveli on the basis of fake disability certificates

and there was a large scale organized fraud.

15.Therefore, medical examination of the petitioners was carried

out to verify the genuineness of their appointments and it was found

that they were not physically disabled. Hence, the respondent Town

Panchayats and Municipalities initiated disciplinary proceedings as

against the petitioners that they had unlawfully secured appointments

against posts reserved for the physically challenged priority category by

furnishing fake disability certificates to the District Employment

Exchange. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the petitioners were

accommodated in priority posts, even though they were not physically

disabled. Acting upon the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary

authority has passed final orders, terminating the petitioners from

service. As against the same, these writ petitions have been filed.

16.The primordial contention of the petitioners is that their

interview call letters or appointment orders did not specify that they

33/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

were appointed as against the priority quota for the physically disabled

persons and therefore, it cannot be said that they have committed any

fraud or misrepresentation. This Court is not inclined to accede this

contention, inasmuch as the nature of an appointment cannot be

determined solely from the wording employed in the appointment

order. The Court is entitled to examine the entire recruitment process

commencing from the requisition made by the appointing authority, the

category under which candidates were sponsored by the Employment

Exchange, the records accompanying such sponsorship and the

circumstances culminating in the appointment. It is only by examining

the recruitment process as a whole that the true character of the

appointment can be ascertained.

17.In the cases on hand, the very manner in which the

appointments were made raises many questions and this Court has

noted the following suspicious factors:

(i) Invariably, in all the cases, the Town Panchayats and

Municipalities have called for candidates under the Priority quota. In

34/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

certain instances, they have called for candidates under the Priority

(General) quota. Therefore, the Employment Exchange was bound to

follow the order of priority as provided under G.O.Ms.No.188, Personnel

and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-P) Department dated 28.12.1976.

As per this Government Order, not only the physically disabled persons

but disabled Ex-servicemen including Ex-Indian Peace Keeping Force

Personnel and their family members, Destitute Widows, Inter-Caste

Married couples, legal heirs of freedom fighters, Indian Nationals

returning from Burma / Sri Lanka and East African countries of Kenya,

Uganda and Tanzania due to repatriation and members of the family

(including members of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe) whose lands

have been acquired for Government purposes as well as for the projects

of the Public Sector Undertakings should also be considered for the

priority posts. However, these categories have been bypassed and

directly the names of the petitioners were sent that they are physically

disabled. In other instances, the Town Panchayats and Municipalities

concerned have called for candidates from specific priority categories.

However, the Employment Exchange has sent the National Disability

35/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

Card and disability certificates of the petitioners to the Town Panchayats

as if they are disabled persons and the petitioners were also

accommodated under the physically disabled priority quota, even

though the appointment orders does not reflect the same.

(ii) The Employment Exchange has sent the National Disability

Identity Cards of the petitioners bearing their signatures and

photographs to the Town Panchayats and Municipalities along with

documents certifying them as persons with physical disability. The

subsequent medical examination of the petitioners found that they were

not physically disabled. This, in turn, raises serious doubts regarding the

genuineness of the National Disability Identity Cards and disability

certificates forwarded by the Employment Exchange. However, it has

not been explained as to how the Employment Exchange came into

possession of these disability documents containing the petitioners'

photographs, personal particulars and signatures or why those

documents alone were forwarded to the appointing authorities. Equally,

the petitioners have not offered any satisfactory explanation as to how

36/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

such disability identity cards and certificates came to be issued in their

names. In the absence of any plausible explanation regarding the origin

and transmission of these documents, the petitioners cannot plead

complete ignorance of the circumstances under which they secured

appointment.

(iii) The petitioners have produced certificates of physical fitness at

the time of their appointment. This is completely contradictory to the

details provided by the Employment Exchange that the petitioners were

physically disabled. However, the Selection Committee failed to verify

either the genuineness of the disability certificates or the medical fitness

of the petitioners before confirming their appointments.

All the above factors creates an impression that there was

impropriety in the process followed in the selection of the petitioners.

18.The priority category system for recruitment by calling for

candidates from the Employment Exchange was introduced by the

Government to provide targeted affirmative action and opportunities for

37/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

marginalized or disadvantaged societal groups. As per this system, there

is an order of priority wherein multiple marginalized groups are listed

and the employment under the priority posts should be made by

following this order. However, the other categories belonging to the

priority system were bypassed and the names of the petitioners were

sent by the Employment Exchange that they are physically disabled.

19.It is also relevant to note that the Government introduced 3%

reservations in State Public Services for physically disabled persons vide

G.O.Ms.No.602, Social Welfare Department, dated 14.09.1981 with the

object of ensuring their welfare and social advancement. However, it

was found that the petitioners were not physically disabled but were

accommodated under the priority posts meant for the physically

disabled persons and by misusing the reservation provided for the

benefit of persons who are actually physically disabled. Therefore, the

petitioners have not only taken away the posts meant for the physically

disabled persons but also snatched away the opportunities provided to

the other priority groups as per the order of priority.

38/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

20.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the well-settled

principle of Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never

dwell together). The law does not permit a person to retain an advantage

obtained by practising fraud or misrepresentation. In Union of India v.

Prohlad Gupta [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1865], the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reiterated that fraud vitiates every solemn act and that a person who

secures public employment by practising fraud cannot seek protection of

the law to retain such appointment, in the following terms:

“14.The above discussion reiterates that fraud vitiates all

proceedings. Compassionate appointment is granted to those persons

whose families are left deeply troubled or destitute by the primary

breadwinner either having been incapacitated or having passed away.

So when persons seeking appointment on such ground attempt to

falsely establish their eligibility, as has been done in this case, such

positions cannot be allowed to be retained. So far as the submission of

non compliance of the Rules is concerned, the judgment in

Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) answers the question. The respondent-

employees in the present case, having obtained their position by

fraud, would not be considered to be holding a post for the purpose of

the protections under the Constitution. We are supported in this

conclusion by the observations made in Devendra Kumar v. State of

39/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

Uttaranchal.

In paragraph 25 thereof it was observed—

“25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance

with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the

same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus — a foundation being

removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong

cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any

law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court. In such a

case the legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria

sua propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be

permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to

inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide Union of India v. Major

General Madan Lal Yadav [(1996) 4 SCC 127 : 1996 SCC (Cri)

592 : AIR 1996 SC 1340] and Lily Thomas v. Union of India

[(2000) 6 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056].) Nor can a person

claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex

injuria non oritur). (Emphasis supplied)”

21.Therefore, an appointment obtained by practising fraud upon

the public exchequer is void ab initio. The persons with disabilities are

treated as a priority category as the State has an obligation to facilitate

the advancement of persons with disabilities. Therefore, the petitioners

40/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

cannot claim any equity or legal right over the posts reserved for persons

with physical disabilities, when they are not physically disabled persons.

By obtaining public employment in the priority quota meant for

physically disabled persons through fake disability identity cards and

certificates and continuing in service for around eight years, the

petitioners have committed fraud not only upon the Government, but

also upon disabled persons and persons belonging to other priority

categories who were deprived of their lawful employment opportunities.

22.It is also relevant to note that most of the petitioners have been

arrayed as accused in the final report filed by the CB-CID. Though mere

arraignment as an accused cannot, by itself, determine the legality of the

disciplinary proceedings or justify the impugned orders, it nevertheless

forms part of the surrounding circumstances explaining the initiation of

the disciplinary action. The departmental proceedings were not

commenced on mere suspicion but arose out of a large-scale

investigation into the alleged misuse of disability certificates for securing

appointments under the priority quota.

41/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

23.Insofar as the aspect of delay is concerned, the respondent Town

Panchayats and Municipalities have sufficiently justified the same due to

the medical examination of the petitioners and also the pendency of

criminal proceedings. Therefore, on this ground alone, this Court is not

inclined to set aside the impugned disciplinary proceedings and

termination orders.

24.This Court is conscious in not recording any finding as to

whether the petitioners themselves forged or fabricated the disability

identity cards or disability certificates. That issue forms part of the

pending criminal proceedings. However, the cumulative effect of the

materials discussed above, namely, the requisitions made under the

priority category, the sponsorship of the petitioners by the Employment

Exchange as physically disabled candidates, the disability documents

forwarded along with their candidature, the subsequent medical

examination, the absence of any satisfactory explanation regarding those

documents and the procedural irregularities noticed in the recruitment

42/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

process, furnish sufficient objective material for the disciplinary

authorities to proceed against the petitioners. This Court, therefore, does

not find any ground to interfere with the impugned disciplinary

proceedings or the consequential orders of termination in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, insofar as

these writ petitions are concerned.

WP(MD)No.36374 of 2025:-

25.Insofar as M.Sudalaikani [the petitioner in WP(MD)No.36374 of

2025] is concerned, the petitioner claims that he was not subjected to any

medical examination before the impugned termination order was

passed. However, a perusal of the impugned order of termination dated

05.06.2018 reveals that the Dean of the Tirunelveli Medical College

Hospital has sent a communication on 12.01.2016 that the petitioner was

subjected to medical examination on 09.01.2016 and it was found that

there was no clinically obvious permanent physical disability. Even

though the appointment order reflects that the petitioner was appointed

under the Scheduled Caste priority category, he was admittedly

43/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

accommodated under the priority quota meant for persons with

physically disabled persons. Further, the Employment Exchange has

forwarded the National Disability Identity Card and disability certificate

of the petitioner to the Municipality as if the petitioner was physically

disabled. The medical examination has established that these documents

were fake and no explanation has been provided as to why these

documents were sent by the Employment Exchange. Therefore, this

Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned orders as against this

petitioner.

WP(MD)No.1141 of 2025:-

26.Insofar as T.Saravanan [the petitioner in WP(MD)No.1141 of

2025] is concerned, he was appointed under the priority quota for the

physically disabled persons based on his disability certificate that he has

50% Learning Disability. Thereafter, he was sent for medical

examination and the Dean, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital has

provided a report on 25.11.2015 that there was “No Clinical Evidence of

any Physical Disability”. The petitioner was suspended on the basis of

44/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

the same on 14.12.2015. However, the petitioner was sent for another

medical examination on 07.09.2016 and the Joint Director of Welfare

Services (in charge), Tirunelveli has provided a report on 15.09.2016 that

while the petitioner does not have Learning Disability and that his

Disability Certificate was not genuine, he has 40% permanent disability

in the Left Hand and Wrist and that he may be included in the disability

quota. Based on this report, the enquiry officer recommended that the

suspension of the petitioner may be cancelled and the same was also

accepted on 01.06.2017.

27.However, another charge memo has been issued on 13.09.2024

on the very same charges and the impugned enquiry report is based on

the initial report of the Dean, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital dated

25.11.2015 that there was no evidence of physical disability. Since the

enquiry officer has failed to consider the later report of the Medical

Board that the petitioner had 40% permanent disability in his left hand

and wrist, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned enquiry report

and show cause notice as against this petitioner.

45/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

Other Findings:-

28.This Court has noted that the irregularities in the present batch

of cases appear to have originated primarily at the stage of sponsorship

by the District Employment Exchange. The records disclose that the

Employment Exchange forwarded the names of the petitioners to the

respondent Town Panchayats and Municipalities as persons belonging

to the physically disabled priority category together with disability

identity cards and disability certificates, even though they were not

actually physically disabled. It remains wholly unexplained as to how

such disability documents, containing the photographs, signatures and

personal particulars of the petitioners, came into the possession of the

Employment Exchange or on what basis they were accepted as genuine.

29.More importantly, the Government Orders governing

recruitment through the Employment Exchange recognise several

categories under the priority system, including Ex-servicemen,

dependants of Ex-servicemen, legal heirs of freedom fighters, destitute

46/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

widows, repatriates and persons whose lands were acquired for

Government projects, apart from persons with disabilities. When the

respondent Town Panchayats and Municipalities sought candidates

under the priority category, it is not known as to why the Employment

Exchange sponsored only candidates shown as persons with disabilities

without adhering to the prescribed order of priority or considering

candidates from the other recognised priority categories. No satisfactory

explanation is forthcoming in this regard.

30.These circumstances disclose either a complete failure in the

process of verification or a deeper systemic irregularity in the

functioning of the Employment Exchange. In either event, the matter

raises serious concerns touching upon the integrity and transparency of

public recruitment. The Employment Exchanges are entrusted with the

registration of job seekers, sponsorship of eligible candidates against

notified vacancies and maintenance of employment records. Thousands

of aspiring candidates depend upon the fairness and impartiality of this

mechanism for access to public employment. Any manipulation or

47/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

failure in this process not only prejudices deserving candidates but also

erodes public confidence in the fairness of recruitment to public service.

31.This Court also takes note of the categorical statement made by

the CB-CID in its status report that the investigation has revealed similar

appointments in various other Municipalities on the basis of disability

certificates and that further investigation in respect thereof is presently

under progress. The systemic deficiencies noticed in the present batch of

cases, therefore, cannot be viewed as confined to the petitioners before

this Court but appear to have wider ramifications affecting public

recruitment through the Employment Exchanges.

32.In view of the above, the Secretary to Government, Labour

Welfare and Skill Development Department, Chennai, is suo motu

impleaded as a party respondent to the writ petition in WP(MD)No.4738

of 2026. The Secretary shall constitute a Committee of senior officers to

conduct a comprehensive enquiry into the manner in which candidates

were sponsored by the concerned District Employment Exchange for

48/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

appointment under the priority category. The Committee shall examine

(i) the manner in which the disability identity cards and

disability certificates came to be accepted and forwarded by the

Employment Exchange;

(ii) why the prescribed procedure and the order of

priority governing sponsorship were not adhered to;

(iii) the officers / officials responsible for any lapse,

negligence, misconduct or collusion in the sponsorship process;

and

(iv) whether similar irregularities have occurred in other

recruitments made through the Employment Exchange during

the relevant period.

Based on the findings of the Committee, the Secretary shall take

appropriate departmental action against the officers / officials

concerned, wherever such action is found warranted, after putting them

on notice, in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

33.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organised Crime Unit,

CB-CID, Tirunelveli, shall also examine the role played by the officials of

49/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

the District Employment Exchange, if any, in the occurrence under

investigation. The investigation shall not remain confined to the

beneficiaries of the appointments alone, but shall also encompass the

manner in which the candidates came to be sponsored under the

physically disabled priority category, the source of the disability

documents, the apparent departure from the prescribed order of priority

and the role of the officials concerned, if any. The report of the

Committee shall be forwarded to the investigating agency immediately

on its completion, and the investigating agency shall take the same into

consideration, if found relevant, during the course of investigation. The

investigating agency shall thereafter carry the investigation to its logical

conclusion, in accordance with law.

34.The Secretary shall also undertake a comprehensive review of

the existing mechanism governing sponsorship through the

Employment Exchanges and put in place appropriate administrative and

supervisory safeguards to ensure strict compliance with the Government

Orders governing priority sponsorship, proper verification of records

50/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

and greater accountability in the sponsorship process, so as to prevent

the recurrence of similar irregularities.

With the above observations and directions,

i) WP(MD)Nos.29546 to 29549, 29943, 31354, 31357, 31430, 31431 of

2024; 782, 801, 1049, 1319, 1409, 5704, 5705, 36374 of 2025; 3214, 4738 of

2026 are dismissed.

ii) WP(MD)No.1141 of 2025 is allowed and the impugned show

cause notice and enquiry report are set aide.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Internet: Yes 23.07.2026

gk

Note:

Mark a copy of this order to

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Organised Crime Unit,

CB-CID,

Tirunelveli.

51/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

To

1.The Secretary to Government,

Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department,

Secretariat, Chennai.

2.The Director of Town Panchayat,

Urban Administrative Buildings,

No.75, Santhome High Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.

3.The Director,

Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply,

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

4.The District Collector,

Collectorate,

Tenkasi District.

5.The Municipal Commissioner,

Kadayanallur Municipality,

Tenkasi District.

6.The District Employment Officer,

Employment Exchange,

Tirunelveli.

7.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,

Tirunelveli Zone,

Tirunelveli.

8.The Commissioner,

Srivilliputhur Municipality,

Virudhunagar District.

52/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

9.The Commissioner,

Ambasamuthiram Municipality,

Tirunelveli District.

10.The Commissioner,

Puliyankudi Municipality,

Tirunelveli District.

11.The Executive Officer,

Mukkudal Selection Grade Town Panchayat,

Tirunelveli.

12.The Executive Officer,

Achanpudur 1

st

Grade Town Panchayat,

Achanpudur, Kadayanallur Taluk,

Tenkasi District.

13.The Executive Officer,

Pudur(S) 1

st

Grade Town Panchayat,

Pudur, Tenkasi District.

14.The Executive Officer,

Vadakarai Kilpidagai Town Panchayat,

Vadakarai Kilpidagai,

Tenkasi District.

15.The Executive Officer,

Vadakku Valliyur Special Grade Town Panchayat,

Vadakku Valliyur,

Tirunelveli District.

16.The Executive Officer,

Manimutharu Special Grade Town Panchayat,

Manimutharu – 627 421,

Tirunelveli District.

53/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

17.The Executive Officer,

Veeravanallur Town Panchayat,

Veeravanallur,

Tirunelveli District.

18.The Executive Officer,

Panagudi Special Grade Town Panchayat,

Panagudi,

Tirunelveli District.

19.The Executive Officer,

Special Grade Town Panchayat,

Thisayanvilai,

Tirunelveli District.

20.The Executive Officer,

Selection Grade Town Panchayat,

Naranammalpuram,

Tirunelveli.

54/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

gk

WP(MD)Nos.29546 to 29549, 29943, 31354, 31357, 31430, 31431 of 2024;

782, 801, 1049, 1141, 1319, 1409, 5704, 5705, 36374 of 2025;

3214, 4738 of 2026

23.07.2026

55/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis