D.SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. DURAISAM vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

WP(MD) No. 24550 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR
WP(MD) No. 24550 of 2018
CNR:{HCMD010978542018}
D.Subramanian
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Forest Plantation-Corporation Limited,
Karur Road,
Mallachipuram,
Kamparasampettai Post,
Trichy-620101.
2. The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation-Corporation Limited,
Machuvadi,
Pudukkottai.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider
the petitioners representation dated 03.04.2017 and thereby return to him
his original testimonials and other documents submitted by the petitioner
to the respondents in the event of non compliance of the order of this
Honourable Court referred to in his representation in respect of his
selection as Forest Watcher.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Suresh Kannan,
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Sailendra Babu
Government Advocate (Civil Side)
For R1
Mr.T.Amjad Khan, for R2.
__________
Page  1  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:57 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24550 of 2018
ORDER
Heard Mr.Suresh Kannan, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.G.Sailendra Babu, learned Government Advocate (Civil Side)
st
appearing for the 1 respondent and Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned counsel
nd
appearing for the 2 respondent and perused the materials available on
record.
2. This writ petition is filed asking for the issuance of Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation dated
03.04.2017 and return his original testimonials and other documents
submitted to the respondents at the time of considering his candidature
for selection to the post of Forest Watcher.
4. Mr.Suresh Kannan, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner
would strenuously contend that the writ petitioner, a Sri Lankan
nd
Ex-repatriate was working in the 2 respondent office as a night
Watchman on daily wage basis as an N.M.R, from 1985 and he was
sponsored by the Employment Exchange in June 1990 and he participated
in the interview that was held by the Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation
Corporation on 13.07.1990 and at the time of such a selection process, he
had submitted his original testimonials before the authorities and stating
that he is not satisfying the qualification criteria, particularly with regard
to height, his candidature was not considered. However, despite the
__________
Page  2  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:57 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24550 of 2018
conclusion arrived by the respondent that he is not eligible for selection,
they had not returned the original certificates that were taken from him at
the time of the said selection. He accordingly prays for allowing the writ
petition.
5. Per contra, Mr. T. Amjad Khan learned counsel appearing for
nd
the 2 respondent would invite the attention of this Court to the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents and in particular, he refers to
paragraphs 3-8. The said counter affidavit is extracted here under:
“3. 3. It is respectfully submitted that, during 1990, a Selection
Committee was constituted in Tamilnadu Forest Plantation
Corporation Ltd, (hereinafter mentioned as "TAFCORN") Trichy for
selecting candidates to the post of Forest Watcher. Accordingly, in the
S.O.No . 102 / 90/E1 dated 29.08.1990 of the Managing Director,
TAFCORN, Trichy, it was stated that 3 (Three) persons were selected
for the post of Forest Watcher temporarily and allotted to Pudukottai
Region subject to production of physical fitness certificate obtained
from a Medial Officer not lower than the rank of Civil Assistant
Surgeon and their appointment will be cancelled if they were found
medically unfit. Of these 3 individuals, the writ petitioner was one of
the candidates.
4. 4. It is respectfully submitted that, in the above said letter of the
Managing Director, TAFCORN, Trichy, instructions were also issued
to the Regional Manager, TAFCORN, Pudukottai to verify all the
records, height, chest measurements and medical fitness certificates of
the individuals before joining duty and report the fact with the date of
joining. In respect of the writ petitioner, he did not possess the required
height to the post of Forest Watcher and hence he was not appointed to
the post of Forest Watcher.
__________
Page  3  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:57 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24550 of 2018
5. 5. It is respectfully submitted that the writ petitioner had filed
W.P.No . 10060 of 1992 with the prayer for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus directing the second respondent therein (i.e the Regional
Manager, TAFCORN, Pudukottai) to issue the posting orders for the
post of Forest Watcher pursuant to the selection letter issued by the
first respondent in letter No. 03-01/90 El dated 29.08.1990.
6. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras
dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 24.07.1992 in
W.P.No.10060 of 1992 as given below:
"Para 3: Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is short
of the centimetre height and having regard to the fact that
there appears no relaxation for such shortcomings, in so far
as the petitioner is concerned, this court cannot compel the
respondents to issue appointment order and consequently
there is no merit in the writ petition and is accordingly
dismissed."
7. 7. It is respectfully submitted that after 3 years of the said Order, the
writ petitioner had again filed another writ petition in W.P.No . 3424 of
1995 with the prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to return all the originals viz., 1) School Certificate 2)
Ceylon Repatriation certificate 3) Employment Exchange Card and
Selection order and consequently direct the respondents to the post of
Forest Watcher on the basis of the Selection order dated 29.08.1990.
And the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras
on 17.07.2001 with the following observations:-
Para 3: The learned counsel for the respondents contended that
no original records were received by the respondents. The
__________
Page  4  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:57 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24550 of 2018
earlier writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself
and hence, the non receipt of records from the petitioners was
not brought to the notice of this court, even though the
petitioner was not selected. He was not appointed since he is
medically unfit. Hence the question of return of the original
document do not arise.
Para 4: The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to place
on record any document to establish that the original
documents had been produced before the respondents herein. In
the prayer, he had mentioned the selection order as item No. 4.
It is not known as to how he is entitled for the selection order
when he was not appointed to the post of Forest watcher. The
learned counsel for the petitioner represents that the original
documents are with the respondent whereas the respondents
have filed counter affidavit refuting the same. Since this being a
disputed question of fact under the proceedings, the same
cannot be decided. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the
conduct of the respondents, it is open to him to initiate
proceedings, in accordance with the law. Hence, the writ
petition is dismissed".
8. 8. It is respectfully submitted that after 17 years from the date of
passing of the said Order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition
W.P.(MD).No.24550 of 2018 with the same relief sought in
W.P.No.3424 of 1995, which was already dismissed by the Hon'ble
court on 17.07.2001. Therefore, the prayer made herein in the present
writ petition was already decided as mentioned above. Therefore, the
Principle of Res Judicata will inevitably come into effect and hence
the present writ petition is not be maintainable.”
6. It is evident that the writ petitioner had already come before this
Court with a very same prayer and this Court had rejected the request on
__________
Page  5  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:57 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24550 of 2018
merits on the premise that the writ petitioner had not produced any
material to substantiate that the original documents were actually
produced by him before the respondents. Since an earlier writ petition
was filed for a similar relief, and since it has already been decided on
merits, it is not permissible for the Court to allow the writ petitioner to
re-agitate the same matter once again.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
psa
To
1. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Forest Plantation-Corporation Limited,
Karur Road,
Mallachipuram,
Kamparasampettai Post,
Trichy-620101.
2. The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation-Corporation Limited,
Machuvadi,
Pudukkottai.
__________
Page  6  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:57 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24550 of 2018
N. DILIP KUMAR, J.
psa
WP(MD) No. 24550 of 2018
26-10-2026
__________
Page  7  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:57 pm )