Dismissed

Mrs. Roselin Metilda v. the Director of Teacher

Madras HC16 Aug 2023WP/10996/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought to restrain respondents from approving another person as Principal until his own appointment proposal was disposed of. The court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner was dismissed from service, rendering the claim devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits due to petitioner's dismissal from service; connected M.P. closed.

Mrs. Roselin Metilda Vs the Director of Teacher — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10996 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.10996 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009

Roselin Metilda

.... Petitioner

The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶11

The Principal, DIET, Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶12

D.John Thiruthuvadoss

¶13

Rev.A.Rajavelu .... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in approving the proposal submitted by the 4^th respondent for appointment of the 3^rd respondent or anybody else as principal of the Union Teachers Training Institute, Viruthampet, Vellore – 6 till the disposal of the proposal of appointment of the petitioner as principal of Union Teachers Training Institute, Viruthampet on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.10996 of 2009

¶17

For Petitioner	: No appearance
For R1 & R2	: Mr.M.Muthusamy
	Government Advocate
For R3 & R4	: Mr.S.Prabakaran
	for M/s.Paul & Paul

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed for forbearing the 1^st and

¶20

2^nd respondents in approving the proposal submitted by the 4^th respondent

¶21

for appointment of the 3^rd respondent or anybody else as Principal of the Union Teachers Training Institute, Viruthampet, Vellore – 6, till the disposal of the proposal of appointment of the petitioner as Principal of Union Teachers Training Institute, Viruthampet, on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶22

It is seen that now the petitioner is not working since he

¶23

was dismissed from service. Therefore, the prayer sough for in this writ petition cannot be considered. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

16.08.2023

¶25

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.10996 of 2009

¶28

¶29

The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶30

The Principal, DIET, Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.10996 of 2009

¶33

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp

W.P.No.10996 of 2009

16.08.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mrs. Roselin Metilda v. the Director of Teacher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Roselin Metilda v. the Director of Teacher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Pradeep Kumar, Vs the Judicial Magistrate

B.Ambalatharasu, Vs the Judicial Magistrate

G.Gnanavel Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Dr.T.Iyappan Vs Government of Tamilnadu

K.Iraivan, Mandappam, Vs the Presiding Officer

T. Mangalambiga Vs the Tamilnadu Electricity