Uncategorized

HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A.No.1546 of 2026 and C.M.P.N o .14450 of 2026 1. R.Naresh S/o.Ravi No.28/15 Pammal Nallathambi Street Thandai Periyar Nagar

by Sekar Reporter · July 3, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.06.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.1546 of 2026 and C.M.P.N o .14450 of 2026
1. R.Naresh
S/o.Ravi
No.28/15 Pammal Nallathambi Street Thandai Periyar Nagar, Taramani Chennai-600 113.
2. Sugumaran
S/o.Selvapandian
No.38, New street Poonthottam, Vakkur Cuddalore-608 201.
3. Prasanna.L
S/o.Lakshmanan
No.01, Periyapalam, Kulithalai Karur – 639 104.
4. Vinoth.M.C
S/o.Chandrasekaran
No.1/165, Bajanai Koil Street Narayanapuram, R.K.Pet Post Thiruvallur-631 303.
5. Jayasurya.J, S/o.Jayakandan
No.357,Marappanayakkanpatti Polayampalli, Harur, Morappur Dharmapuri-635 305.
6. Bharath.M
S/o.Murugan
No.55, Appasamy Naidu Street Kaveripattinam Krishnagiri-635 112.
7. Ranjithkumar.P
No.243/3, Anaikatti Ganapathy Street Maruthi Garden, Pichnur, Gudiyatham, Vellore-632 602.
8. Lakshmanan K
S/o.Drishnasamy
No.1/282A, Musili Street, Eragudi Post Thuraiyur, Trichirappalli-621 001.
9. Elumalai.M
S/o.Muthusamy
No.122, Paraimettu Street, Nallur Madhuranthagam Post, Chengalpattu-603 302.
10.Prasanth.K
S/o.Kumar
No.131, Mookkanurpatty Sandhapatty Post Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District-635 305.
11.Jeevitharan.A
S/o.Arivazhagan
No.190(2), Kulakarai Street Melacheri Village and Post Villupuram District – 604 202.
12.Vimalraj.R
S/o.Rajakumar
No.1/25, East Street, Vadavoor Post, Nirthanamangalam,
Nagapattinam-611 118.
13.Chinnaraja.R
S/o.Sanjeevi.N
No.2/106, ST Colony Aroor Village Ponneri-601 204.
14.Vimal kumar.P
S/o.Prabakaran.D
No.2/124, Kollaimedu, Singardeiyur Karasamangalam Post, Katpadi Taluk Vellore-632 202.
15.S.Santhoshkumar
S/o.Sasikumar
No.1/200, Big Street, Thirumani Katpadi Taluk, Vellore-632 202.
16.Harishkumar.S
S/o.Sankar
Ramadhasnagar, Sathiyamangalam
Vellore Taluk, Poigai Village-632 114.
17.Vignesharan.V
S/o.Venkatesan
No.17C/B Vilanthangal Road Kallakurichi-606 202.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Principal Secretary to Government Health and Family welfare (L1) Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director
Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai-600006.
3. The Medical Service Recruitment Board
Rep by its Chairman, Government of Tamilnadu No.359, Anna Salai, DMS Complex, Teynampet Chennai-600 006.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to direct speedy disposal of W.M.P.No.13661 of 2026 in W.P. No.12491 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned Single Judge.
For Appellant(s): Mr. M.Gnanasekar
For Respondent(s):Mr. K.Kumaran
Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)
This writ appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the procedural listing directions issued in W.P. No.12491 of 2026, currently pending consideration before the learned Single Judge.
2. At the threshold, this court raised a query about the maintainability of the writ appeal against a direction issued to list the writ petition along with other connected writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that:
(i) The learned Single Judge committed a material irregularity by failing to consider the matter on its independent merits as contemplated under Rule 19 of the Madras High Court Rules, choosing instead to relegate it to a mere adjournment.
(ii) Parallel challenges concerning the selfsame examination had already been evaluated by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No. 2052 of 2026, wherein, by order dated 24.2.2026, he had directed a CBCID investigation.
(iii) A Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 09.03.2026 in W.P.Nos.436 and 438 of 2026 had expressly permitted the respondent authorities to fill up the vacancies, subject only to leaving 47 posts vacant.
(iv) By keeping the present petition in limbo and tagging it with an entirely distinct prayer, the learned
Single Judge has effectively paralyzed the appointment process, causing severe prejudice and financial hardship to selected candidates.
4. Before venturing into the substantive merits of the grounds urged by the appellants, this Court is confronted with a fundamental threshold barrier concerning the maintainability of this appeal.
5. The statutory anchor for this intra-court appeal is Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court. It is a foundational principle of appellate jurisprudence that an appeal under Clause 15 is viable only when preferred against a “judgment” rendered by a learned
Single Judge. Clause 15 explicitly provides:
“We do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Madras from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction…) of one Judge of the said High Court…”
6. The core issue is whether a routine case-management entry, a e-court status update, or an order purely tracking the administrative business of the court, such as “Post along with W.P.No.9839/2026”, can be judicially stretched to satisfy the legal definition of a “judgment.”
7. The phrase “judgment” cannot be distorted to encompass every interlocutory or case-management directive passed for the orderly conduct of a proceeding. To qualify as an appealable judgment, the order must possess the characteristics of finality; it must conclusively determine, or at the very least vitally affect, the substantial rights and obligations of the parties regarding the main controversy or an independent ancillary issue.
8. A routine procedural order directing a case to be listed alongside an allied matter is a salutary step taken to prevent conflicting judicial pronouncements. It determines no rights, resolves no controversy, and does not terminate the litigation. It is simply an administrative-judicial step in aid of justice, residing squarely within the absolute discretion of the learned Judge. It underscores that the learned Single Judge has not yet decided about the admissibility of the case under Rule 19 of the Rules, but has simply rescheduled the hearing of the matter. A mere entry in the e-court case status cannot be made the subject-matter of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. If such ministerial and docket-management exercises are elevated to the status of appealable judgments, it would open the floodgates of vexatious appellate litigation, severely disrupting the institutional hierarchy and the functional independence of the writ courts.
9. Accordingly, we hold that the e-court case status or an order of adjournment does not possess the traits of a “judgment” within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The writ appeal is, therefore, entirely not maintainable. As the appeal founders on the bedrock of maintainability, this Court refrains from adjudicating upon the merits of the selection process.
10. However, taking into consideration the plea that the appellants’ careers are hanging in the balance, we deem it fit to ensure that they are not left without an avenue for redressal. Therefore, while dismissing the writ appeal as not maintainable, we grant liberty to the appellants to move the learned Single Judge dealing with W.P.No.12491 of 2026 for an expeditious disposal of the main writ petition on its own merits.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected interim application stands closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
29.06.2026
Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes
sasi
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government Health and Family welfare (L1) Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director
Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai-600006.
3. The Chairman, Medical Service Recruitment Board Government of Tamilnadu
No.359, Anna Salai, DMS Complex, Teynampet Chennai-600 006.