An employee cannot seek reinstatement where appointment was fraudulent and termination remained unchallenged.

The appellant was appointed in 2006 as a part-time worker in Ariyur Village Panchayat for maintaining street lights.

He was subsequently absorbed as a Work Inspector on consolidated pay in the Vellore Corporation.

Although part-time workers were later converted into full-time workers, an audit objection was raised regarding the appellant’s absorption, and he continued to be engaged only as a consolidated-pay employee.

An order of termination was thereafter issued, but the appellant did not challenge that order.

Instead, he challenged the authorities’ response to his representations seeking reinstatement.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the alleged initial appointment involved fraudulent tampering of records and that the appellant had not approached the Court with clean hands.

The appellant preferred the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Whether the appellant was entitled to reinstatement or re-engagement when the order of termination had not been challenged and the validity of his initial appointment was itself questioned on the ground of fraud.

Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition disclosed any error warranting interference in the writ appeal.

The Court applied the principle that a person seeking writ relief must challenge the legally operative order affecting his rights and cannot obtain reinstatement merely by questioning a subsequent administrative response while leaving the termination order unchallenged.

It further applied the principle that no right to appointment or reinstatement can ordinarily arise where the foundational appointment is alleged to be fraudulent or unauthorised, and that discretionary writ jurisdiction is unavailable to a litigant who has not approached the Court with clean hands.

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The Court noted that the appellant had not challenged the termination order, which remained operative.

His writ petition was directed only against the response to his representations for reinstatement, rather than against the substantive order terminating his engagement.

The Single Judge had also found that the audit disclosed fraudulent tampering of records to create the appearance that the appellant and others had been validly appointed.

In those circumstances, the authorities could not be compelled to reinstate or re-engage a person whose initial appointment itself was alleged to be fraudulent.

The Division Bench found that the appellant had not established any ground for reconsidering the Single Judge’s order.

It held that the appellant was not entitled to reinstatement or re-engagement, particularly because he had failed to challenge the termination order and the legitimacy of his initial appointment was seriously disputed on the basis of alleged fraud.

The writ appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition was closed.