Writ petition challenging suspension is dismissed as infructuous after reinstatement and subsequent promotion.

The petitioner, a Junior Assistant employed by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. and placed under suspension, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the proceedings bearing No. M3/4605/2024 dated 22 July 2024 issued by the first respondent. He sought quashing of the suspension order and consequential reinstatement into service.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the suspension was revoked, the petitioner was reinstated, and he was subsequently promoted. Both parties placed these subsequent developments before the Court.

Whether the writ petition challenging the petitioner’s suspension order continued to survive after the suspension had been revoked and the petitioner had been reinstated and promoted.

Whether any further relief, including quashing of the suspension order and a direction for reinstatement, could be granted in the circumstances.

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition becomes infructuous when the relief originally sought has already been granted or the underlying cause for seeking relief no longer survives.

The petition was considered under the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petition initially sought to invalidate the suspension order and secure the petitioner’s reinstatement.

However, the respondents’ subsequent revocation of the suspension and reinstatement of the petitioner removed the immediate grievance underlying the writ petition. The petitioner’s later promotion further demonstrated that the substantive service-related relief sought had already been obtained. Consequently, there was no surviving controversy requiring adjudication, and the Court treated the writ petition as infructuous.

The writ petition was therefore dismissed as infructuous, without costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.