Subsequent allocation to the School Education Department rendered the original posting challenge infructuous.

The petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Ucch Madhyamik Shikshak (History) and secured Rank 800. He was initially allocated to a school under the Tribal Welfare Department, whereas a lower-ranked candidate, holding Rank 817 and belonging to the same category, was allocated to the School Education Department.

The petitioner challenged the allocation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking posting in the School Education Department in accordance with his merit and preference. During the pendency of the petition, the respondents issued an order dated 11.08.2025 allocating the petitioner to the School Education Department. The petitioner nevertheless raised consequential grievances concerning his treatment as a fresh appointee, probation, seniority, pay fixation, increments, and continuity of service. These issues were also raised in W.P. No. 34266 of 2025.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle that a writ petition becomes infructuous, wholly or partly, when the relief originally sought is subsequently granted or the underlying grievance is otherwise resolved during the pendency of the proceedings.

The Court further followed the principle against parallel adjudication of issues already raised in separate proceedings, noting that the petitioner’s consequential service claims were the subject matter of W.P. No. 34266 of 2025.

The petitioner’s principal grievance was his allocation to the Tribal Welfare Department instead of the School Education Department despite his higher merit rank. Since the respondents subsequently allocated him to the School Education Department by order dated 11.08.2025, the relief concerning allocation and posting had already been substantially granted and no effective adjudication remained necessary on that issue.

Although consequential disputes regarding service continuity, seniority, pay, increments, probation, and related benefits remained, the Court declined to examine them in the present petition because they had already been challenged in W.P. No. 34266 of 2025.

The present writ petition was accordingly disposed of to that extent, without adjudicating the consequential service claims, which were left to be considered in the separate proceedings. No order was made as to costs.