Routine procedural listing directions do not constitute an appealable "judgment" under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

The appellants, candidates in a medical recruitment examination, filed a writ petition (W.P. No.12491 of 2026) seeking relief regarding the appointment process.

The learned Single Judge issued a procedural direction to list their petition along with another connected matter (W.P. No.9839/2026).

The appellants challenged this listing direction via a Writ Appeal, contending that jumping the matter to a future date alongside a distinct prayer paralyzed the appointment process and caused financial hardship.

1. Whether a routine case-management or procedural listing direction issued by a learned Single Judge constitutes a "judgment" appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?

The court applied Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Madras High Court, which ordains that an intra-court appeal lies only against a "judgment" of a Single Judge.

The court relied on the established legal principle that for an order to qualify as a "judgment," it must possess characteristics of finality and must conclusively determine or vitally affect the substantial rights and obligations of the parties.

Furthermore, the court referred to Rule 19 of the Madras High Court Rules regarding the independent consideration of matters.

The Court analyzed whether the administrative docket-management of a Single Judge—specifically an e-court status update or a "post along with" instruction—met the threshold of a "judgment."

The Division Bench reasoned that such orders are merely salutary steps taken to prevent conflicting pronouncements and ensure orderly conduct.

The court noted that the Single Judge had not decided on the admissibility or the merits of the case but had simply rescheduled the hearing.

To elevate such ministerial acts to "judgments" would disrupt institutional hierarchy and invite vexatious litigation.

Consequently, as the impugned order resolved no controversy and terminated no litigation, it failed the "judgment" test required for maintainability under Clause 15.

The appeal was dismissed without adjudication on the merits of the selection process.

The Court granted liberty to the appellants to move the learned Single Judge for an expeditious disposal of the main writ petition (W.P.No.12491 of 2026).

Independent interim applications were closed with no order as to costs.