Dismissed

Dr.N.Praveen, Aged 31 Years v. Selection Committee

Madras HC30 Oct 2017WA/2245/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an intra-court appeal against a writ petition regarding selection for appointment as Assistant Professor, the High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal as infructuous following the counsel's concession that subsequent events rendered the matter devoid of adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Intra-court appeal dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Dr.N.Praveen, Aged 31 Years Vs Selection… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 30.10.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

W.A No.2245 of 2013

and

M.P.No.1 of 2013

Dr.N.Praveen, ... Appellant versus 1.Selection Committee (Teaching Posts) Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Gorimedu, Puducherry-605 006. 2.The Dean Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Gorimedu, Puducherry - 605 606

¶11

Registrar i/c, Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Gorimedu, Puducherry - 605 606

¶12

4.Dr.E.Canmany, MDS,

¶13

5.The Director of Medical Education, Office of the Director of Medical Educational Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 23.10.2013 made in W.P.No.28689 of 2013.

¶15

W.P.No.28689 of 2013:

¶16

Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the selection of the 4th respondent made by the 1st respondent and published in Proceedings NO. 766/MGPGI/ Estt/ A1/2012-13/ 135 dated 9.10.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to declare that the petitioner to be appointed as Assistant Professor the Department of Orthodontics of Mahatma

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences Gorrimedu Puducherry.

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.S.Marimuthu for
M/s.K.V.Subramanian Associatez
For Respondents : Ms.V.Usha
Addl.Govt.Pleader (Puducherry)
for R1 to R3
Mr.V.Anandhamurthy
Additional Government Pleader
For R5.
J U D G E M E N T
[Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.]
The factual matrix indicates that nothing survives for
adjudication on account of the subsequent events. The learned
counsel for the appellant has also made an endorsement to that
effect.
2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel
for the appellant, the intra court appeal is dismissed as
infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
kv/svki
To
1.The Selection Committee (Teaching Posts)
Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate
Institute of Dental Sciences,
Gorimedu, Puducherry-605 006.
2.The Dean
Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate
Institute of Dental Sciences,
Gorimedu, Puducherry - 605 606

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

The Registrar i/c, Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences,

¶22

Gorimedu, Puducherry - 605 606

¶23

The Director of Medical Education, Office of the Director of Medical Educational Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.

¶24

+1 cC to Govt. Advocate sr 77061.

¶25

W.A No.2245 of 2013
SSI(CO)
SP(20/11/2017)

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Dr.N.Praveen, Aged 31 Years v. Selection Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.N.Praveen, Aged 31 Years v. Selection Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Officer Vs P.Kalimuthu

Hindustan Petroleum Vs M/S.Geetha Transport

N.Subramani Vs The Inspector General of

The Tahsildhar Vs P.Bagyalakshmi

K.C. Ramachandran Vs the Commissioner

K.M.v.Bhuvaneshwaran Vs the Indian Oil Corporation