Madras High Court
P.Vincent Rover vs The District Education Officer on 29 January, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)NO.814 OF 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012
P.Vincent Rover :Appellant/Petitioner
.vs.
1.The District Education Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramnad District.
2.P.Rajendran
3.The Bishop,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,
Tranquebar House,
Tiruchirappalli-1.
4.The Secretary,
Church Council,
Tranquebar House,
Tiruchirappalli-1. : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.11053 of 2011, dated 05.09.2012.
For Appellant :Mr.M.Suresh Kumar
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Respondent-1 :Mrs.S.Srimathy
Special Govt.Pleader
For Respondents :Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi
2 and 4 for M/s.Hallmark Associates
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by this
Court made in W.P(MD)No.11053 of 2011, dated 05.09.2012.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.The Writ Appellant originally filed W.P(MD)No.11053 of
2011 challenging the proceedings of the first respondent/The
District Education Officer, Paramakudi, Ramnad District in
Na.Ka.No.4707/A1/2010, dated 20.09.201.
3.The issue relates to the appointment of Correspondent of
TELC High School, Muthukulathur. The Petitioner was originally
appointed as Correspondent for the period between 2010-2013. But
the impugned order was passed by the District Education Officer,
Paramakudi,Ramnad District appointing one Mr.P.Rajendran as
Correspondent to the said School, which was challenged in the Writ
http://www.judis.nic.in
Petition. Pending Writ Petition, the impugned order was withdrawn.
Therefore, the Writ Petition was rendered infructuous. However,
when there was a disturbance to the functioning of the Writ
Petitioner, the present Writ Appeal was filed. Now the learned
counsel for the appellant states that the period itself is over in the
year 2013 and therefore, nothing survives for adjudication and
that the Writ Appeal has become infructuous.
4.Recording the above-said submission, the Writ Appeal is
dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
[P.S.N.,J.] & [S.K.,J.]
29.01.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
To
The District Education Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramnad District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA J.
AND
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NO.814 OF 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012
29.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
