IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.06.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.A.Nos.1816 of 2000 and 488 of 2001 and C.M.P.No.15754 of 2000 and 3817 of 2001 W.A.No.1816 of 2000: 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary Education Department, Madras-9 2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road Madras-6 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli and Post Tirunelveli Kattabomman District 4.The Addl.Assistant Educational Officer Nanguneri and Post Tirunelveli Kattabomman District ..Appellants/Respondents Vs. Esther Gnana Thangam ..Respondent/Petitioner W.A.No.488 of 2001: 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary Education Department, Madras-9 2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road Chennai -6 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil Kanniyakumari District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The Assistant Educational Officer Kuzhithurai Nagar, Kanyakumari District .... Appellants/Respondents Vs. N.Krishnan Potti .... Respondent/Petitioner Prayer: Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1816 of 2000 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 24.9.1999 passed by the single Judge in W.P.No.8743 of 1997. Presented under article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent passed in letter No.7070/PRI.EDU/J1/93, dated 30.5.94 and the consequented order of the first respondent issued in G.O.MP.No.689, Education, science and Technology (D1) Department, dated 31.8.95 and quash the same in so far as the not lifting the ban with effect from 1.6.94 to 31.5.95 alone is concerned and direct the respondents to approve the petitioners appointment as secondary grade teacher with salary and other benefits from 6.6.94 instead of 1.6.95 (WP NO.8743 of 1997) Writ Appeal in W.A.No.488 of 2001 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 24.9.1999 passed by the single Judge in W.P.No.11465 of 1995. Presented under article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.7070/Ele.Edn.J1/93, dated 30.3.95 and quash the same (WP No.11465/95) For Appellant : Mr.P.Wilson,Addl.Advocate in both Appeals General assisted by Mr.M.Dhandapani For Respondents : No Appearance JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by B.RAJENDRAN,J.) These Writ Appeals arise against the orders of this Court dated 24.9.1999 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.8743 of 1997 and 11465 of 1995 respectively. 2. The writ petition in W.P.No.8743 of 1997 is filed seeking for writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd Respondent passed in Lr.No.7070/Pri.Edu/J1/93 dated 20.5.1994 and the consequential order of the first respondent issued in G.O.Ms.No.689 Education, Science and Technology (D1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department, dated 31.8.1995 and quash the same in so far as the lifting of the ban with effect from 1.6.1994 to 31.5.1995 alone is concerned and direct the respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment on Secondary Grade Teacher with salary and other benefits from 6.6.1994 instead of 1.6.1995. 3. The other Writ Petition in W.P.No.488 of 2001 is filed seeking for writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.7070/E1/Ed,J1-93 dated 30.3.1995 and quash the same. 4. The subject matter in the writ petitions is challenging the ban order in appointing the teachers to the School. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General that subsequently the ban has been lifted and furthermore some of the appointments which were done prior to that were also subsequently ratified. Though the Bench is of the opinion that the Government has got the power to restrict or impose a ban, the question of the power to the Government is left open in view of the subsequent development especially in the lifting of ban by the Government itself and it is also brought to the notice of the Court that Writ Appeals in W.A.No.1213 of 2001 etc., batch, wherein a similar issue came up for consideration, Division Bench of this Court by order dated 8.12.2009, dismissed the Writ Appeals as having become infructuous, which reads as under: "When these writ appeals came up for hearing today, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant submitted that the writ appeals have become infructuous and the learned Advocate made the following endorsement: "Except W.A.Nos.1238/2001, 1337/2001, 1906/2001, 1908/2001, 1236/2001 and 1239/2001, all other writ appeals have become infructuous as before the disposal of W.Ps, all appointments have been approved by authorities." In view of the above endorsement, these writ appeals are dismissed as having become infructuous....." 5. Therefore, in view of the subsequent development and the order of this Court dated 8.12.2009, even though in one case notice has not been served on the writ petitioner, these Writ Appeals are are closed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.Ps are also closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. usk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Copy to: 1.Secretary Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu Madras-9 2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road Madras-6 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli and Post Tirunelveli Kattabomman District 4.The Addl.Assistant Educational Officer Nanguneri and Post Tirunelveli Kattabomman District 5.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil Kanniyakumari District. 6.The Assistant Educational Officer Kuzhithurai Nagar,Kanyakumari District + 1 cc to Govt., Pleader CC Sr 41061 W.A.Nos.1816 of 2000 and 488 of 2001 MRD (CO) EU (24.6.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/