Dismissed¶18

Uma Maheswari.R v. The District Education Officer

Madras HC24 Oct 2025WP(MD)/22538/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous dismissal of writ of certiorari against teacher charge memo dated 25.08.2023; petitioner teacher deputed/deployed to another school; respondents include District Educational Officers of Virudhunagar and Srivilliputhur and third respondent K.Soundararajan (school); Article 226 Constitution of India; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; single judge Abdul Quddhose, J.; no merits adjudication; no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD) No.18773 of 2023 closed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶18

Uma Maheswari.R Vs The District Education Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.22538 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.22538 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) No.18773 of 2023

¶7

R.Uma Maheshwari ... Petitioner -vs-

¶8

1.The District Educational Officer Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District 2.The District Educational Officer Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District 3.K.Soundararajan ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Memo dated 25.08.2023 issued by the 3^rd respondent vide his proceedings Nil and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.E.V.N.Siva for R3

¶11

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶12

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

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

W.P.(MD) No.22538 of 2023

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer sought for in this writ petition has now become infructuous, in view of the fact that

¶16

the petitioner has been deployed to another school and therefore, the impugned charge memo will not subsist.

¶17

2. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent – school also agrees with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

3. After recording the fact that the petitioner has been deputed to another school and in view of the same, the impugned charge memo will not subsist, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

24.10.2025

¶20

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶21

krk

¶22

_____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.22538 of 2023