Reinstatement renders the writ petition infructuous, warranting disposal without costs.

The petitioner, K. Sekar, Superintendent of C. Kandaswami Naidu College for Women, Cuddalore, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent, the Secretary of Pachaiyappa’s Trust, to reinstate him in the fifth respondent-college under Rule 19(3)(a) of the Private Colleges Regulations Act, 1976.

The respondents included the Administrator and Secretary of Pachaiyappa’s Trust, the Director and Joint Director of Collegiate Education, and the Principal of the college.

During the proceedings, the fourth respondent submitted that the petitioner had already been reinstated pursuant to order dated 30 December 2024 in Rc.No.A1/0401/2024.

The petitioner’s counsel admitted that the relief had been granted.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for reinstatement in the fifth respondent-college under Rule 19(3)(a) of the Private Colleges Regulations Act, 1976?

Whether any relief survived after the petitioner had already been reinstated during the pendency of the writ petition?

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which the High Court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel performance of a legal duty.

The petitioner relied on Rule 19(3)(a) of the Private Colleges Regulations Act, 1976 as the statutory basis for seeking reinstatement.

The Court did not examine the substantive scope or applicability of that rule because the requested relief had already been granted; consequently, the Court applied the principle that a writ petition becomes infructuous when the relief sought has been voluntarily or otherwise fully complied with during its pendency.

The petitioner sought reinstatement through a writ of mandamus.

However, the fourth respondent established that reinstatement had already been effected by order dated 30 December 2024, and the petitioner’s counsel expressly admitted the same.

Since the precise relief sought in the writ petition had been granted, there was no surviving dispute requiring adjudication or further direction under Rule 19(3)(a).

The Court therefore treated the petition as having become infructuous and disposed of it without examining the merits of the petitioner’s original entitlement to reinstatement.

Recording the submissions of the parties, it disposed of the writ petition without costs.

The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.