Dismissed¶22

S.Siddhananda Prabu v. The director

Madras HC5 Mar 2026WP/33613/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Mohammed Shaffiq J., 05-03-2026; W.P. No.33613 of 2022; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 against transfer order Ref.No.64720/N1/2022-2 dated 11.11.2022 by Director, Directorate of Medical Education; petitioner S.Siddhananda Prabu sought posting at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital; dismissed as infructuous on counsel's endorsement, no costs, connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no merits adjudication; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Recording the petitioner's counsel's submission and endorsement that the writ petition has become infructuous, no further adjudication is required on the grounds raised in the writ petition. ¶20

S.Siddhananda Prabu Vs The director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P. No.33613 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No.33613 of 2022 and W.M.P. Nos.33066 and 33064 of 2022

¶7

S.Siddhananda Prabu S/o.M.Sangaramoorthy, 5/135B, Sree Nagasudharsananagar, Parpakulam, Tirunelveli-627011

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Director, Directorate of Medical Education, No.162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

¶11

The Dean, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Trichy Road, Coimbatore.

¶12

The Dean, Government Medical College Hospital, Karur.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the transfer order in Ref.No.64720/N1/2022-2 dated 11.11.2022 passed by the first respondent and quash the same, consequently directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work in the second respondent hospital.

¶15

__________ Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. No.33613 of 2022

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Ms.Malaikani For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Bindran Additional Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner made a submission that the writ petition has become infructuous and no further adjudication needs to be made in respect of the grounds raised in the writ petition. She has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle.

¶21