Dr.R.Murugaiyan, v. Pondicherry University,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.11.2023 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011

1. Dr.R.Murugaiyan

2. A.Suresh Poopathy

3. P.Nandhini

4. S.Banumathy

5. D.Gaya

6. Tharakeshwari

7. D.Varalakshmi

8. S.Sivasankaran .. Petitioners

Versus

1. Pondicherry University Rep. by the Registrar, Pondicherry University, Kalapet, Puducherry.

2. Principal, Pondicherry University Community College, Lawspet, Puducherry.

.. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent with No.RC/2011/013, dated 09.05.2011 in respect of the vacancies notified in the Pondicherry University Community College, 1/4

Lawspet, Puducherry in the faculty of Tamil, Mathematics, Commerce, Computer Science, Bio-Chemistry and Management in which the petitioners are working and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to give regular appointment to the petitioners with effect from the date on which they joined as Assistant Professor (Previously Lecturer) on Consolidated Pay Basis with all other consequential benefits including difference of wages, seniority etc.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ajaya Kumar For Respondents : Mrs.A.V.Bharathi

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer challenging the notification, dated 09.05.2011 for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus quashing the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to grant regular appointment to the petitioners with effect from which they joined service as Assistant Professors.

2. Even though initially there was an interim order to keep one post vacant, subsequently, the interim order was not extended and therefore, the respondent University has already proceeded further with the notification and appointments were made. The orders of the appointments are also 2/4

produced before this Court. Secondly, in view of the regular appointment, the petitioners were also disengaged from service. In that view of the matter, the prayer, as such made in the Writ Petition, has since become infructuous.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that they have got a grievance in respect of the filling up of vacancies. That may be so. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the appointments, they should have challenged the appointments and their relieving from service. As far as the present case is concerned, the prayer made by them as such has become infructuous.

4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

29.11.2023 Index : yes Speaking order : no grs 3/4

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 29.11.2023 4/4