The petitioner’s superannuation rendered the challenge to the HOD appointment infructuous.

The petitioner challenged Annamalai University’s order dated 29 June 2022 appointing the second respondent as Head of the Department of Chemistry for a three-year term.

She alleged that she was the department’s senior-most Professor and that her candidature had not been considered because of mala fides.

During the hearing, her counsel stated that the petitioner had superannuated on 30 June 2024.

Whether the petitioner’s superannuation left any issue requiring determination in her challenge to the appointment of the second respondent as Head of Department.

Whether the writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions should be closed in light of the petitioner’s superannuation.

The judgment identifies no statutory provision, precedent, or express legal test as the basis for disposal.

Although the petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court’s stated basis was the factual position that the petitioner had superannuated and, consequently, that nothing survived for consideration in the writ petition.

The petitioner’s challenge concerned the appointment of the second respondent for a three-year term, but the petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that she had superannuated on 30 June 2024.

On that factual basis, the Court concluded that nothing survived in the petition and did not adjudicate the allegations concerning seniority, non-consideration, or mala fides.

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