A writ founded on a dismissed review application presents nothing further for adjudication.

The petitioners sought a declaration that the promotions of respondents 2–15 and appointments of respondents 16–32 were invalid under the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act and Statutes. They also sought a direction that their seniority as Junior Assistants be fixed from their respective appointment dates, relying on an order in Rev. Apl. (MD) No. 23 of 2016.

At the hearing, petitioners’ counsel sought an adjournment to change vakalat. The Court noted prior changes of counsel, repeated adjournment requests and occasions of non-representation.

The University and certain respondents informed the Court that the order relied on by the petitioners had been challenged in Civil Appeal No. 6062 of 2019 and remanded; on reconsideration, the Division Bench dismissed the review application on 12 June 2025, leaving the parties to pursue any seniority remedy in accordance with law.

1. Whether the writ petition could proceed to adjudication when the petitioners’ counsel sought an adjournment and the Court had recorded repeated prior adjournments and non-representation.

2. Whether any issue remained for adjudication in the writ petition after the Division Bench dismissed the review application on which the petitioners principally relied.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, as reflected in the prayer for a writ of declaration.

The Court applied no substantive rule under the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act or Statutes and made no determination on the legality of the promotions, appointments or seniority claims. Its decision rested on the procedural history and the subsequent dismissal of the review application, which had been the principal basis of the writ petition.

The Court noted that the petition had been pending since 2019 and that the petitioners had previously sought adjournments or failed to appear; on the hearing date, counsel again sought time because of a proposed change of vakalat.

More importantly, the petitioners’ claim relied primarily on the 2018 review order, which had been set aside for fresh consideration and was ultimately dismissed by the Division Bench in 2025. In light of that dismissal, the Court concluded that nothing survived for adjudication in this writ petition. The Court did not decide the underlying validity of the respondents’ promotions or appointments, or the merits of the petitioners’ seniority claims.

The order does not determine the merits of the petitioners’ claims concerning promotions, appointments or seniority.