Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
M. Rajkumar – Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 9470 of 2017, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 7206 to 7208 of 2017
Decided On : 08-08-2024
Writ Petition - Promotion and Absorption - The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous since the petitioner had already been promoted to the position of B.T. Assistant, rendering the original request for absorption unnecessary.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order related to the appointment of Graduate Assistants and to direct the absorption of Block Resource Teacher Educators as Graduate Teachers in government schools, based on a government order.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioner had been promoted to the position of B.T. Assistant after the filing of the writ petition, which made the original relief sought irrelevant.
Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking absorption as Graduate Teacher was still valid after the petitioner’s promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that since the petitioner had already received the promotion, the petition was rendered infructuous and thus dismissed.
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 Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide Advertise No. 2/2017 dated 27.04.2017 and quash the same, insofar as relating to Graduate Assistant under Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Services is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the Block Resource Teacher Educators including the petitioner as Graduate Teacher (B.T. Assistant) in Government High and Higher Secondary Schools in pursuance of G.O.(Ms) No. 158, School Education (C2) Department dated 07.09.2006 every year.
1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief sought for in this Writ Petition has now become infructuous since the petitioner subsequent to the filing of this Writ Petition has been promoted as B.T. Assistant. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle.
2. Recording the said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
A writ petition becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer necessary due to subsequent developments, such as a promotion.
A writ petition under Article 226 can be dismissed as infructuous if the relief sought is no longer necessary or applicable due to changed circumstances.
A writ petition can be rendered moot if the relief sought is subsequently granted through administrative action.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to prior court directives in appointment approvals, particularly considering the timing of the petitioner's appointment relative to the surplus teacher ....
Legal proceedings must address current and relevant issues; if an issue becomes moot, the court will dismiss the case.
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
