Three writ petitions filed under Article 226 seeking reinstatement in service were dismissed for non-prosecution as petitioners failed to appear despite multiple postings for dismissal.
The writ petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.04.2018 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P.No.35688 to 35690 of 2003
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 7th respondent in No.863/95 dated 29.05.1995 and direct the 7th respondent to reinstatement the petitioner in service with arrears of salary and other benefits.
W.P.No.35689 of 2003
... Petitioner
R.Rajasekaran
versus
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 7th respondent in No.861/95 dated 24.04.1995 and direct the 7th respondent to reinstatement the petitioner in service with arrears of salary and other benefits. W.P.No.35690 of 2003 N.Vaithiyanathan ... Petitioner versus
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 7th respondent in No.862/95 dated 24.04.1995 and direct the 7th respondent to reinstatement the petitioner in service with arrears of salary and other benefits.
For Petitioner in all W.P.s : No appearance For R1 and R2 in all W.Ps. : Mrs.Thangavadhana Balakrishnan For R3 to R6 : Mr.C.Munusamy
COMMON ORDER
When the matter came up for consideration on 06.04.2018, there was no representation for the petitioners. Hence, the matters were directed to be posted today under the caption “For Dismissal”. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioners. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed for nonprosecution. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Madras – 9.
2. The District Collector,
South Arcot,
Vallalar District.
3. The Director of School Education,
Madras – 6.
4. The Joint Director of School Education,
Madras – 6.
5. The Chief Educational Officer,
Cuddalore, Sourth Arcot
Vallalar District.
6. The District Educational Officer,
Cuddalore, Sourth Arcot District.
7. The Secretary,
Arulmigu Vallalar High School
Vela Vinayagar Kuppam,
Kurinjipadi,
South Arcot Vallalar District
W.P.No.35688 to 35690 of 2003
aa08/06/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ petitions challenging termination orders and seeking reinstatement will be disposed of after dismissal for non-prosecution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.Muthukumaran
R.Rajasekaran
N.Vaithiyanathan
State of Tamilnadu
Arulmigu Vallalar High School
S.VIMALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
