Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1343
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Thamilarasan – Petitioner
Versus
The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 10654 of 2017, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 8136, 9188 of 2017
Decided On : 08-08-2024
Important Points
A writ petition becomes moot and is subject to dismissal when the relief sought has already been achieved by the petitioner.
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
Writ Petition - Promotion - The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous since the petitioner had already received the promotion sought, thereby rendering the request for quashing the previous order unnecessary. The court highlighted that the relief sought had been achieved, aligning with the principles of judicial efficiency and mootness.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order regarding promotion to B.T. Assistant, referencing a prior judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had already been promoted after filing the writ petition, making the case moot.
Issues: Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner receiving the promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of mootness applies when the relief sought has already been granted, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: S. Viji, S. Deenadhayalan.
For the Respondents: T. Amjad Khan, K. Ragatheesh Kumar.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent herein in pursuant to the impugned order in Na.KA.No. 00765/Aa1/2016 dated 05.04.2016 and quash the same and directing the second respondent to give B.T. Assistant promotion to the petitioner in the light of the judgment reported in 2012 (5) CTC 129 (R. Thirunavukkarasu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others).
1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has become infructuous, since the petitioner has been promoted subsequent to the filing of this Writ Petition. Therefore, the relief sought for in this writ petition has been achieved.
2. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
