A writ appeal filed before the Madras High Court was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of a request from the appellants; the Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the legal issues raised. The decision does not operate as precedent and does not disturb or affirm any settled principles of law within the education or service law sectors.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA(MD)/1170/2022 of M.Jeyasreekumar and another Vs Aided Higher Secondary School, CNR HCMD010936462022 |
| Date of Registration | 28-09-2022 |
| Decision Date | 24-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | WITHDRAWN DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH, MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN |
| Precedent Value | Not a precedent; does not decide any question of law or fact on merits |
| Questions of Law | Not decided; appeal dismissed as withdrawn |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court recorded the endorsement of withdrawal based on the appellants’ request by letter dated 02.06.2025, and dismissed the writ appeal and connected petitions as withdrawn without adjudicating the merits. No costs were awarded. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Counsel for the petitioners requested withdrawal of the appeal through an endorsement, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn accordingly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding; no adjudication of legal issues |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive; does not offer analysis or reconsider precedent |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Madras High Court dismissed the writ appeal as withdrawn based solely on a request from counsel; no legal issues were decided.
- No ratio or holding is offered for citation in future cases.
- Such disposals do not create or alter any substantive principle of law.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted an endorsement for withdrawal submitted by the appellants’ counsel, referencing a letter dated 02.06.2025.
- Relying on this request, the Court dismissed the writ appeal and associated miscellaneous petition as withdrawn.
- The judgment does not address or resolve any substantive legal or factual questions.
- No reasons or findings are stated regarding the underlying controversy.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Through counsel, submitted an endorsement seeking withdrawal of the writ appeal, based on a letter dated 02.06.2025.
Respondent
- No arguments recorded; no adjudication of contentions on merit.
Factual Background
Counsel for the appellants moved the High Court to withdraw W.A.(MD)No.1170 of 2022, referencing a formal request dated 02.06.2025. Upon recording this request, the Court dismissed the writ appeal and the connected miscellaneous petition as withdrawn, without any adjudication on the substance of the dispute.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory provisions were interpreted, discussed, or applied by the Court in this judgment.
- The dismissal was strictly procedural, based on the appellants’ withdrawal request.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- No dissenting or separate concurring opinion was issued.
- Both justices concurred in the order of dismissal as withdrawn.
Procedural Innovations
- No new procedural rulings, directions, or innovations were introduced in this judgment.
- The Court followed standard practice of allowing withdrawal of an appeal upon joint request from the appellants.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Standard procedure followed; no precedent created or overruled.