Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Advertisement No. IITM/R/5/2021 dated 3 November 2021 issued by the Indian Institute of Technology Madras.
Source reference: p.2During hearing, the petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that, subsequent to the impugned notification, the recruitment process had proceeded and appointments had been made.
Source reference: p.2It was also fairly conceded that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment pursuant to the notification.
Source reference: p.2The respondents opposed the petition through their respective counsel.
Source reference: p.2Issues
Whether the writ petition challenging the recruitment notification remained maintainable or survived after the recruitment process had concluded and appointments had been made.
Source reference: paras. 3–4; pp.2–3Whether any effective relief could still be granted in respect of the impugned notification when the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process.
Source reference: para. 3; p.2Law Applied
The Court applied the principle that a writ petition becomes infructuous when subsequent events render the relief sought incapable of effective enforcement or when no live controversy remains for adjudication.
Source reference: paras. 1–5; pp.2–3The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, under which relief is discretionary and may be declined where intervening events have overtaken the subject matter of the challenge.
Source reference: paras. 1–5; pp.2–3Reasoning
The petitioner challenged only the recruitment notification dated 3 November 2021. However, by the time of hearing, the recruitment process had progressed to the stage of appointment.
Source reference: paras. 3–4; pp.2–3The petitioner had also participated in that process. In view of these subsequent developments, the Court found that “much water has flown under the bridge” and that no effective purpose would be served by examining the validity of the superseded notification at that stage.
Source reference: paras. 3–4; pp.2–3Holding
The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous because the recruitment process had concluded and appointments had been made.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: para. 5; p.3The connected miscellaneous petitions, W.M.P. Nos. 6475 and 6477 of 2022, were also closed.
Source reference: para. 5; p.3Original Court PDF
Dr.Vinod Kumar RajavsThe Secretary
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
