State appealed an order directing consideration of the respondent for promotion to B.T.Assistant. The Division Bench held the single Judge's order was a consent order and, following S.Thilagavathy, dismissed the writ appeal as not maintainable.
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.
1 W.A.(MD)NO.1279 OF 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD)No.1279 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9857 of 2024
Vs.
A.Maheswari
... Respondent / Writ petitioner
2 W.A.(MD)NO.1279 OF 2024
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 20.12.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.20738 of 2022 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader.
For Respondent : Mr.Chellapandian
J U D G M E N T
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
Judge reads as follows:-
“3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is placed in Rank No.1 in the promotion list and as soon as the vacancy arises, the petitioner's candidature will be considered for promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant.
2/4
3 W.A.(MD)NO.1279 OF 2024
B.T.Assistant, the fifth respondent shall consider the petitioner's candidature and fill up the vacancy, within a period of six weeks from the date of vacancy.”
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (K.RAJASEKAR, J.) 22th July 2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU
3/4
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.
PMU
W.A.(MD)No.1279 of 2024
22.07.2025
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Is a writ appeal maintainable against a consent order of a learned single Judge?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Thilagavathy V. State of T.N.Followed¶3
(2011) 6 SCC 365 · Who else cites this
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education
The Director of Elementary Education
The Joint Director of Elementary Education
The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai
The District Educational Officer, Melur, Madurai District
A.Maheswari
G.R.Swaminathan
K.Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
