An order founded on a precedent later set aside cannot be sustained.

The respondent was appointed as a B.T. Teacher on consolidated pay on 8 September 2005.

Following Government decisions to regularise the services of teachers appointed on consolidated pay, his service was regularised from 1 June 2006 rather than from his initial appointment date.

The respondent sought regularisation from his entry into service for seniority and consequential monetary benefits.

The writ court granted relief relying on T. Kunju Krishnan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P. No. 4991 of 2015, dated 30 July 2019.

The State appealed, informing the Division Bench that the relied-on decision had subsequently been set aside in appeal; the respondent’s counsel conceded that submission.

Whether the writ court’s order could stand when the precedent on which it was based had subsequently been set aside.

Whether the respondent was entitled, in this appeal, to the writ court’s direction for regularisation from the date of entry into service for seniority and consequential monetary benefits.

The appeal was brought under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The Court applied the principle that an order founded on a decision subsequently set aside cannot be sustained on that basis.

The Court noted that T. Kunju Krishnan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P. No. 4991 of 2015, had been set aside in W.A. No. 723 of 2020 and connected proceedings, by judgment dated 17 August 2021; it also noted a Division Bench decision dated 1 June 2021 in W.A.(MD) Nos. 299 of 2020 and connected cases.

The writ court’s direction relied on T. Kunju Krishnan.

By the time this appeal was considered, that decision had been set aside, removing the basis for the writ court’s order.

The respondent’s counsel conceded the State’s submission.

The Division Bench therefore concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained in light of the subsequent development.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.