Daniel Kalaiselvan, Vs Bishop and Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Daniel Kalaiselvan, Vs Bishop and Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner in W.P.No.24211 of 2006 was entitled to quashing of the 6th respondent's proceedings Mu.M.No.52298/W29/2004 dated 06/07/2005 and the 5th respondent's letter O.M.No.5464/A1/2004 dated 29/08/2005, with reinstatement as P.G. Asst (English) and regularisation of service from the date of appointment with consequential monetary benefits (inferred from the prayer clause; never adjudicated on merits). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Owing to the petitioner's continued non-representation even when the matters were listed under the caption 'for dismissal', the Court held it had no option except to dismiss the writ petitions for non-prosecution.

Key takeaways

Both writ petitions (W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 and 19398 of 2008) were dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs awarded.ratio¶55
The connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Single Judge: Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.), Common Order dated 19.08.2025 in W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 & 19398 of 2008 and connected M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2006 and 1 of 2008 - Daniel Kalaiselvan v. The Bishop and Manager, Church of South India, Diocese of Madras and others - DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. W.P.No.24211 of 2006 (under Article 226) sought certiorarified mandamus to quash the 6th respondent's proceedings Mu.M.No.52298/W29/2004 dated 06/07/2005 and the 5th respondent's letter O.M.No.5464/A1/2004 dated 29/08/2005 and to reinstate/regularise the petitioner as P.G. Asst (English); W.P.No.19398 of 2008 sought mandamus for appointment as Post Graduate Assistant in English in a permanent post and forbearance from approving respondents 9 and 10 (Martin and Samuel Jayaseelan). The petitions had already been dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.03.2012 and were later restored at the petitioner's instance. With no representation for the petitioner on 12.08.2025 (matters listed under caption 'for dismissal') and again on 19.08.2025 in both sessions, the Court dismissed both writ petitions for non-prosecution, imposed no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions. No substantive issue was adjudicated and no precedent was cited.

W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 & 19398 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 & 19398 of 2008

and

M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2006 and 1 of 2008

Daniel Kalaiselvan ... Petitioner in both W.Ps

Vs.

1.The Bishop and Manager, Church of South India, Diocese of Madras, Cathedral Road, Chennai – 600 086.

2.The Convener and Diocesan Education Officer, CSI Diocese, Cathedral Road, Chennai – 600 086.

3.The Head Master, Anderson Higher Secondary School, Kancheepuram.

4.The Correspondent, Anderson Higher Secondary School, Kancheepuram.

5.The District Education Officer, Kancheepuram.

6.The Chief Educational Officer, Kancheepuram.

7.Babu Samraj ... Respondents in W.P.No.24211 of 2006

Page 1 of 8

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

W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 & 19398 of 2008

1.The Bishop and Manager, Church of South India, Diocese of Madras, Cathedral Road, Chennai – 600 086.

2.The Convener and Diocesan Education Officer, CSI Diocese, Cathedral Road, Chennai – 600 086.

3.The Director School Education Chennai – 6.

4.The Joint Director of Higher Secondary Education College Road, Chennai – 6.

5.The Chief Education Officer Collectorate, 5^th Floor Sathuvachari, Vellore.

6.The District Education Officer Scout Building, Near Raja Theatre, Vellore.

7.The Chief Education Officer Panagal Maligai, II^nd Floor, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.

8.The District Education Officer Jayagopal Garodia Girls's Hr. Sec. School, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 94.

9.Martin

10.Samuel Jayaseelan

.... Respondents in W.P.No.19398 of 2008

Page 2 of 8

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

W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 & 19398 of 2008

Prayer in W.P.No.24211 of 2006 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records of the 6^th respondent in its proceedings Mu.M.No.52298/W29/2004 dated 06/07/2005 and the letter of the 5^th respondent in O.M.No.5464/A1/2004 dated 29/08/2005 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 6 to reinstate the petitioner into service as P.G. Asst (English) and regularize his services from the date of his appointment with all consequential and other monetary benefits.

Prayer in W.P.No.19398 of 2008 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Post Graduate Assistant in English in a permanent post in any of the Schools of the first and second respondent and forbear the respondents 3 to 8 from approving the promotion and appointment of any one of the 9^th and 10^th respondents.

In W.P.No.24211 of 2006

For Petitioner : No appearance For R1 to R4 & R7 : Ms.Arul Mary for M/S.Father Xavier Associates For R5 & R6 : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar Government Advocate.

In W.P.No.19398 of 2008

For Petitioner : No appearance

Page 3 of 8

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

W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 & 19398 of 2008

For R1 & R2 & R9	: Ms.Arul Mary for
	M/S.Father Xavier Associates
For R3 to R8	: Mr.K.H.RAvikumar
	Government Advocate.
For R10	: FR.Ignacimuthu

COMMON O R D E R

These writ petitions have come up for consideration before this Court

as early as on 16.03.2012. However, as there was no representation for the petitioner, both the writ petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution, by an order dated 16.03.2012.

At the instance of the petitioner these writ petitions were restored on the file of this Court again.

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 12.08.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. In view of the same, both the matters were directed to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal'. Today, inspite of matters being listed under the caption 'for dismissal', there is no representation for the petitioner either in the pre-lunch session or post-lunch session.

In the circumstances, this Court is left with no other option

Page 4 of 8

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

W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 & 19398 of 2008

except to dismiss these writ petitions for non-prosecution. Accordingly, both

the writ petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Connected

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

19.08.2025

dpa

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

To

1.The Bishop and Manager, Church of South India, Diocese of Madras, Cathedral Road,

Page 5 of 8

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

W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 & 19398 of 2008

Chennai – 600 086.

2.The Convener and Diocesan Education Officer, CSI Diocese, Cathedral Road, Chennai – 600 086.

3.The Head Master, Anderson Higher Secondary School, Kancheepuram.

4.The Correspondent, Anderson Higher Secondary School, Kancheepuram.

5.The District Education Officer, Kancheepuram.

6.The Chief Educational Officer, Kancheepuram.

7.The Director School Education Chennai – 6.

8.The Joint Director of Higher Secondary Education College Road, Chennai – 6.

9.The Chief Education Officer Collectorate, 5^th Floor Sathuvachari, Vellore.

10.The District Education Officer Scout Building, Near Raja Theatre, Vellore.

11.The Chief Education Officer

Page 6 of 8

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

W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 & 19398 of 2008

Panagal Maligai, II^nd Floor, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.

12.The District Education Officer Jayagopal Garodia Girls's Hr. Sec. School, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 94.

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

dpa

Page 7 of 8

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

W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 & 19398 of 2008

W.P.Nos.24211 of 2006 & 19398 of 2008

19.08.2025

Page 8 of 8

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