Writ petitions dismissed for non-prosecution after petitioners repeatedly failed to appear.

The petitioners filed four writ petitions challenging IIT Madras promotion decisions and notices concerning promotion to Superintendent and Junior Superintendent posts. They sought, among other reliefs, consideration of eligible feeder-cadre employees through departmental promotion committees and the framing of promotion statutes.

On the hearing date, no one appeared for the petitioners. The Court recorded that there had also been no representation on the preceding hearing date and that, despite an earlier request for time to obtain a no-objection vakalat from their previous counsel, the petitioners had neither engaged new counsel nor provided instructions.

1. Whether the writ petitions should be dismissed for non-prosecution in light of the petitioners’ repeated non-appearance and failure to provide instructions.

2. Whether the Court should determine the petitioners’ substantive challenges to the IIT Madras promotion process despite their non-appearance.

The Court applied no substantive statutory provision, precedent, or detailed procedural rule in its order.

It proceeded on the procedural basis that writ petitions may be dismissed for non-prosecution where petitioners fail to appear and the Court concludes they are not interested in pursuing the proceedings.

The Court relied on the petitioners’ absence on the hearing date and the preceding date, together with their failure to engage new counsel or provide instructions after seeking time to do so. On those circumstances, it concluded that the petitioners were not interested in pursuing the petitions.

It therefore did not examine the legality of the challenged promotions or notices, or the requested promotion-related relief.

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