Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, drew the attention of this Court, to the similar orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Benches, which are extracted hereunder:-
(i). In W.A.No.258 of 2009, etc., batch, (1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 and three others Vs. Corlay Higher Secondary School, Tambaram) dated 12/7/2010, a Hon'ble Division Bench held as follows:-
" When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that in a connected matter, viz., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.987 and 9838 of 2010, (Secretary to Government and Others Vs. D.Samuel Raj Thomas & another), dated 26/3/2010, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions on the ground of delay and on merits and the question of law was left open. Producing a copy of the order in a connected matter in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 4732 of 2009 (Secretary Education Department & Others Vs. S.D.Rajkumar & Another), the learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that in the said case, the Supreme Court has stayed the contempt proceedings, if any, and not the judgment passed in Writ Appeal. Therefore, it is submitted that since the main issue has been dealt with by the Supreme Court, nothing remains in the present writ appeals and they are liable to be dismissed."
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that in a connected matter viz., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.987 and 9838 of 2010 (Secretary to Government & Others Vs. D. Samuel Raj Thomas & Another), the Supreme Court by order dated 26/3/2010 dismissed the Special Leave Petitions on the ground of delay and on merits and the question of law was left open. By producing a copy of the order in a connected matter in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 4734 of 2009 (Secretary Education Department & Others Vs. S.D.Rajkumar & Another), the learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that in the said case, the Supreme Court has stayed the contempt proceedings, if any, and not the judgment passed in the Writ Appeal. Therefore, it is submitted that since the main issue has been dealt with by the Supreme Court, nothing remains in the present writ appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, though not disputed the above position, sought time for getting instructions. However, he submitted that the stay granted by the Supreme Court relates only to contempt proceedings and there is no stay of the judgment made in the writ appeals.
6. In view of the fact that there is no stay in the Special Leave Petitions preferred against the judgment of the writ appeals relating to approval of appointment during the ban period and some of the SLPs were dismissed, the present writ appeal is dismissed."