Implementation of a writ order in coordination with administrative policy renders the challenge to that order moot.

The Respondent, J.S. Sayikumar, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for promotion to the post of Head of Department (HOD) and the fixation of a higher pay band (Rs. 37,400–67,000) with a Grade Pay of Rs. 9,000/- effective from 2009.

The Writ Court, in its order dated 29.04.2024, dismissed the claim for promotion to HOD but allowed the prayer for pay fixation under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), noting that the appellants admitted the evaluation process was already in progress.

The Appellants (PIPMATE) challenged this order via a Writ Appeal, specifically contesting the findings related to CAS, which they argued was not the primary prayer of the respondent.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants implemented the pay fixation via Office Memorandums dated 08.07.2024 and 26.07.2024.

1. Whether the Writ Court erred in granting relief regarding the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and pay fixation when the primary prayer was for promotion to HOD.

2. Whether the Writ Appeal remains maintainable following the appellants' voluntary implementation of the impugned order during the pendency of the proceedings.

The Court applied the principles of the AICTE Regulations, 2010, regarding Career Advancement Schemes (CAS) for faculty pay progression.

Doctrine of substantial compliance and mootness in appellate jurisdiction; whereby if an authority voluntarily implements the directions of a lower court through subsequent administrative orders (such as the Office Memorandums dated July 2024), the grounds for assailing the original judgment are rendered redundant.

The Court observed that while the Appellants initially challenged the Writ Court’s direction on pay fixation, they subsequently issued Office Memorandums on 08.07.2024 and 26.07.2024 to implement said fixation.

The Appellants granted the respondent a revised pay scale of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000/- effective notionally from 01.05.2010, with actual monetary benefits from 26.07.2024.

The Court noted that the Writ Court had correctly dismissed the HOD promotion claim while merely directing "appropriate" pay fixation within three months, without specifically mandating retrospective monetary arrears.

Since the Appellants took independent administrative action to satisfy the Writ Court’s directions regarding CAS and pay fixation, the Division Bench determined that no further legal grievances remained to be adjudicated.

The Writ Appeal was disposed of without costs, effectively sustaining the Writ Court's order as implemented by the Appellants’ subsequent administrative actions.