Dismissed

V.Jaisankar v. Director of Medical Education

Madras HC2 Aug 2023WP/2597/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking regularization of the petitioner's service as a driver. The court held the petition untenable because the petitioner had voluntarily resigned on 15.05.2020, rendering the claim extinguished.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner had already resigned from the service.

V.Jaisankar Vs Director of Medical Education — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.2597 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.2597 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.2737 of 2022

V.Jaisankar

... Petitioner

Versus

1.Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk,

¶11

Chennai – 600 010.

¶12

2.The Dean, Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai – 600 001.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service in the post of Driver in the Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai with effect from the date of initial appointment.

¶15

For Petitioner : No Representation For Respondents : Mr.S.Arumugam, Government Advocate

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to

¶18

regularize the petitioner's service in the post of Driver in the Government

¶19

Stanley Hospital, Chennai with effect from the date of initial appointment.

¶20

Page No.1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.No.2597 of 2022

¶22

2.When the matter came up before this Court in last hearing, it was

¶23

brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the petitioner already resigned from his job on 15.05.2020 and the copy of the resignation letter was placed before this Court. At that time, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions from his client/petitioner. When the matter is came up for hearing today, no representation for the petitioner either in person or by his respective Counsel.

¶24

3.In such view of the matter, having regard to the fact that the petitioner voluntarily gave resignation letter to the respondents and retired from service on 15.05.2020, nothing survives in this Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶25

02.08.2023

¶26

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

¶27

vv2

¶28

Page No.2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.2597 of 2022

¶30

¶31

1.The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶32

2.The Dean, Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai – 600 001.

¶33

Page No.3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.2597 of 2022

¶35

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. vv2

¶36

W.P.No.2597 of 2022

¶37

02.08.2023

¶38

Page No.4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V.Jaisankar v. Director of Medical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Jaisankar v. Director of Medical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Naveen Vs The District Collector

E.Thanappan Vs The Chief Engineer / Personal

Mr. K.Senthilkumar Vs TamilNadu State Transport corporation

K.C.Ravichandran Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

M.Vinayagamurthy Vs the State Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary Cum Home

V.Jayaprakash Vs the Chairman