After Tamil Nadu Withdraws Temporary Director of Legal Studies Promotion, Madras HC Disposes of Law College Principal’s Challenge

In brief

The question

Whether the writ appeal and writ petition required further adjudication after the State stated that G.O.Ms. No. 246 would stand withdrawn

The court held

Recording the Advocate General’s statement that G.O.Ms. No. 246 dated 8 September 2026 stood withdrawn, the Court disposed of the writ appeal and writ petition and directed the State to pursue the promotion process in accordance with law.

It also directed

It recorded the State’s further statement that it would take steps for a temporary appointment in the meantime.

No costs were ordered, and the interim applications were closed.

01Facts

The State had earlier assigned the third respondent additional charge as Director of Legal Studies.

After the High Court set aside an interim stay of that arrangement, the Advocate General stated that the process for filling the post under Rule 2(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service would be completed within two months

p. 5 · ¶ 4

The State subsequently issued G.O.Ms. No. 246 dated 8 September 2026, granting the third respondent temporary promotion.

The writ petitioner challenged that order, and the Single Judge stayed it on 1 October 2026, finding it contrary to the assurance given to the Division Bench.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 5

The State appealed against the interim stay; the writ petition was also heard with the appeal.

p. 4 · ¶ 1–3

02Issues

i.Whether the writ appeal and writ petition required further adjudication after the State stated that G.O.Ms. No. 246 would stand withdrawn

p. 6 · ¶ 6–7

ii.Whether the State should proceed with filling the Director of Legal Studies post in accordance with Rule 2(a) of the applicable Special Rules

p. 6 · ¶ 7

03Law Applied

The Court referred to Rule 2(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service as governing the process for filling the post of Director of Legal Studies.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 4, 6–7

It directed the State to pursue the promotion process in accordance with law.

04Reasoning

The State informed the Court that it intended to withdraw G.O.Ms. No. 246 and proceed with the promotion process under Rule 2(a).

p. 6 · ¶ 6

In light of that statement, the Court held that nothing further remained to be adjudicated in either proceeding; it did not determine the merits of the challenge to the temporary promotion or the petitioner’s claim to promotion.

p. 6 · ¶ 7

The Court also recorded the State’s statement that it would take steps to fill the post temporarily in the meantime.

p. 7 · ¶ 8