Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Saravanan – Petitioner
Versus
The Director General, Highways Department, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 23824 of 2018, W.M.P. (MD) No. 21578 of 2018
Decided On : 22-08-2024
Writ Petition - Promotion Panel - The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous after noting that the petitioner had been promoted subsequent to the filing of the petition, indicating that the legal provision for mandamus was no longer applicable as the relief sought had been granted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to include their name in the promotion panel for the post of Superintendent based on a representation made on 31.10.2018.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the submission from the learned Special Government Pleader that the petitioner had been promoted after the filing of the writ petition, leading to the conclusion that the matter was resolved.
Issues: Whether the writ petition for mandamus was maintainable after the petitioner received the promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that since the petitioner had already been promoted, the writ petition was rendered infructuous and did not require further adjudication.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to include the petitioner's name in the promotion panel for the post of Superintendent on the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 31.10.2018.
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to record the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that subsequent to the filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner was promoted. He would also submit that after recording the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader, this Writ Petition can be dismissed as infructuous.
2. Recording the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has been promoted and that nothing survives for further adjudication, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous when the relief sought has already been granted, negating the need for judicial intervention.
A writ petition can be rendered moot if the relief sought is subsequently granted through administrative action.
A petitioner has the right to withdraw a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, leading to its dismissal without further examination.
Legal proceedings must address current and relevant issues; if an issue becomes moot, the court will dismiss the case.
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner shows a lack of interest in pursuing the case.
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to appear in court, demonstrating a lack of interest in the proceedings.
The right to timely promotion and payment of due increments under the Career Advance Scheme is essential for fair administrative action in public service.
A writ petition can be dismissed as infructuous when the issues raised have been resolved or rendered moot by subsequent events.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous if the respondent party dies, eliminating the basis for the action sought.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
