Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
A. Rosemary – Petitioner
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, by its Secretary, School Education Department – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 9012 of 2017, W.M.P. (MD) No. 6880 of 2017
Decided On : 07-08-2024
INFRUCTUOUS - WRIT PETITION - The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous since the petitioner’s request for an extension of service had expired, and the petitioner had already retired, rendering the prayer for relief moot.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order that denied an extension of service until 31.05.2017, after the petitioner had retired on 30.04.2017.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's request for extension had become irrelevant as the period sought had already lapsed, and there was no representation from the petitioner during the hearing.
Issues: Whether the writ petition for extension of service was valid given that the petitioner had already retired and the extension period had expired.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a writ petition becomes infructuous when the relief sought cannot be granted due to the lapse of time or change in circumstances, as was the case here.
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, calling for the records of the impugned order of the third respondent Na.Ka.No. 462/A5/2017, dated 27.04.2017 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue the service till 31.05.2017.
1. There is no representation on the side of the petitioner.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents would submit that the prayer sought for in this writ petition has now become infructuous, since the extension sought for by the petitioner which has been rejected under the impugned order has also got expired.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner had sought for extension of the service by another period of five months from 01.05.2017 to 31.05.2017. The petitioner has also retired from service on 30.04.2017. Therefore, it is clear that the prayer sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. Hence, this Writ Petition has now become infructuous.
4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
A writ petition is rendered infructuous when the circumstances surrounding the request for relief change, making it impossible to grant the requested relief.
Legal proceedings must address current and relevant issues; if an issue becomes moot, the court will dismiss the case.
The validity of termination of employment based on the age of retirement as specified in the Service Rules.
A writ petition under Article 226 can be withdrawn if the circumstances surrounding the case change, making the petition moot.
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
