Disposed¶29

Dr.P.Gajivaradhan, v. Director of Collegiate

Madras HC3 Jun 2026WP/10550/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous closure of a Madras High Court writ petition (Article 226 certiorarified mandamus) concerning appointment/designation as Deputy Head of Department of Maths at Pachayappas College; impugned administrative order Rc.No.A1/1952/2010 dated 30.04.2010 by Secretary, Pachayappas Trust Board; petition closed on counsel's submission and endorsement, no costs, connected miscellaneous petition also closed; no ratio or holdings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr.P.Gajivaradhan, Vs Director of Collegiate — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.10550 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.06.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.10550 of 2010 and

¶6

M.P.No.2 of 2010

¶7

Dr.P.Gajivaradhan ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Director of Collegiate Education Chennai-6.

¶10

2.Secretary Pachayappas Trust Board Chennai 30.

¶11

3.Principal Pachayappas College Chennai 30.

¶12

4.K.Premakumari Associate Professor Mathematics Department Pachayappas College Chennai 30.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Prayer : This Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.10550 of 2010 records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.A1/1952/2010 dated 30.04.2010 and quash the same

¶18

in so far as the appointment of the 4^th respondent as Deputy Head of Department of Maths is concerned and direct the respondents to designate

¶19

the petitioner as Deputy Head of Department and confer all the consequential benefits.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.C.P.Goutham for R1 Additional Government Pleader Mr.N.Baskaran for R2 & R3 Ms.G.Thilagavathy for R4

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted

¶23

that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for consideration any further and thus, the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶24

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement in the bundle.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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