IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Orders Reserved on 30.10.2020 Pronounced on 09.11.2020 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH anna university case For Respondent : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian in both WPs Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram Standing Counsel

CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.Nos.3175 of 2016, 4695 of 2016
and WMP Nos.4082, 2608, 2607 of 2016
WP No.3175 of 2016
1. R.Ezhilarasan
2. R.Srikanth
3. S.Palanisamy
4. S.Chandar
5. E.Thiyagarajan
6. G.Saravanan
7. P.Natarajan
8.G.Ranjith
9.S.Parvathy
10.N.Mohan Kumar
11.S.Kala
12.M.Kumar
13. U.Chinnaraj
14. G.Saravanan
15. K.Senthil
16. M.Lalitha
17.G.Pannerselvam
18. G.Sureshkumar
19. D.Balu
20. K.Sathish Kumar
21. R.Ananthakumar
1/26
http://www.judis.nic.in
[11/13, 12:48] Sekarreporter 1: interview concluded on 28.01.2014 and thereafter fill up the remaining posts
of Office Assistant pursuant to the Advt.No.001/PR 33/2016 dated
13.01.2016.
Prayer in WP No.4695 of 2016 :- Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondent to regularise the services of the petitioners as Office Assistant
pursuant to the Circular No.001/PR 62 / 2013 dated 25.04.2013 and
interview concluded on 27.01.2014 and thereafter fill up the remaining posts
of Office Assistant pursuant to the Advt.No.001/PR 33/2016 dated
13.01.2016.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Senior Counsel
in both Wps for M/s.C.S.Associates
For Respondent : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian
in both WPs Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram
Standing Counsel
O R D E R
The issues involved in both the writ petitions are common
and hence, they are taken up together and this common order is
passed.
3/26
http://www.judis.nic.in
[11/13, 12:49] Sekarreporter 1: issue any positive direction in this regard.
16. Insofar as the claim made by the learned Senior Counsel on
the Principal of Equal pay for Equal work, it is always left open to the
petitioners to make a representation to the University in this regard
and if the University decides to continue with the services of the
petitioners, the representation can be considered strictly in
accordance with law.
17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not in a
position to grant the relief as prayed for in these writ petitions and
both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.11.2020
rka
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
24/26
http://www.judis.nic.in