Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J.
C.S.Vijayakumar - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 3669, 8616 Of 2015
Decided On : 22-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR, SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
For the Respondent: GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC
OTHER PRESENT: SMT RASHMI K M, SR.GP
Writ petitions become infructuous when the petitioner is no longer in service or the subject of the challenge has ceased to exist.
Headnote:
(A) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3669 of 2015 - Challenge to rejection of appointment as Public Relations Officer - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8616 of 2015 - Challenge to appointment of Section Officer - Both petitions dismissed as infructuous due to superannuation of petitioner and retirement of the 4th respondent. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Legal principle - A writ petition becomes infructuous when the petitioner is no longer in service or the subject of the challenge has ceased to exist. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his appointment as PRO and the appointment of the 4th respondent as Section Officer. The petitioner had already attained superannuation and the 4th respondent had retired in 2017.
Findings of Court:
Both writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitions could proceed given the superannuation of the petitioner and retirement of the 4th respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitions were rendered moot due to the retirement of the parties involved, thus lacking any live controversy.
Result: Both writ petitions dismissed as infructuous.
JUDGMENT :
S.MANU, J.
W.P.(C)No.3669 of 2015 was filed challenging Ext.P32 proceedings of the Institute of Management in Government by which, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Public Relations Officer (PRO) was rejected. The petitioner sought a direction to appoint him as PRO from the date of Ext.P32 order with all consequential benefits. W.P.(C)No.8616 of 2015 was filed by the same petitioner challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent as Section Officer.
2. When these cases are taken up today, the learned Standing Counsel for the Institute of Management in Government submitted that, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation long ago and he is no more in service of the Institute. Therefore, W.P.(C)No.3669 of 2015 has become infructuous.
3. Regarding W.P.(C)No.8616 of 2015, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the 4th respondent, whose appointment was under challenge, retired in the year 2017 and therefore, the challenge would not survive. Accordingly, W.P. (C)No.8616 of 2015 has also become infructuous.
In view of the above, both writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous.
