The Director Of School v. N.Sathishkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM C.M.P.No.14533 of 2017 in W.A. SR. 66401 of 2017 and W.A. SR. 66401 of 2017
1. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer, Sankagiri 637 301 Salem District.
Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
N.Sathishkumar Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 292 days in filing the above Writ Appeal against the order dated 4.10.2016 made in W.P.No.19010 of 2015.
Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 4.10.2016 made in W.P.No.19010 of 2015 on the file of this court.
For petitioners/appellants : Mr.Prathapsingh Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Kamadevan
COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners/appellants and Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. It appears that the respondent herein sought for a relief of appointment on compassionate grounds and the learned Single Judge, by his order dated 4.10.2016, after considering the entire materials on the issue, has allowed the writ petition quashing the denial of appointment on compassionate grounds and directed the writ petitioner/respondent herein to approach the authority with necessary documents with regard to his educational qualification and indigent circumstances of his family, within the time stipulated therein and on such approach, the authority was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders.
3. It is now brought to our notice that pursuant to production of necessary documents, the respondent herein has been appointed and he has been working for more than one year. Such being the case, the appeal is preferred as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, with a petition seeking to condone the delay of 294 days.
4. In view of the subsequent development, the writ appeal becomes infructuous. Therefore, we find that there would be no use in condoning the
delay and entertaining the writ appeal. Accordingly, the petition seeking to condone the delay is dismissed and the writ appeal at SR stage is rejected not only as a consequence, but, also on the ground that it has become infructuous. No costs.
(H.G.R.,J.)(M.K.K.S.,J.) 26.10.2018.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ssk.
To
1. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer, Sankagiri 637 301 Salem District.
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.
AND K.KALYANASUNDARAM. J.
ssk.
C.M.P.No.14533 of 2017 in W.A. SR. 66401 of 2017 and W.A. SR. 66401 of 2017 26.10.2018.