Case Note & Summary
The appellant, J. Joseph Suresh, a differently abled person, filed a writ petition (W.P.No.3894 of 2026) seeking a direction to the respondents to pass orders on his application and issue a hall ticket for the computer-based examination for the post of Sports Coach scheduled on 04.02.2026. The writ court, on 03.02.2026, recorded arguments and adjourned the matter to 10.02.2026. Subsequently, the matter was further adjourned at the request of the appellant's counsel. The appellant then filed the present intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the adjournment order. The appellant argued that the rights of differently abled persons under the statute must be protected and that delay in disposal would cause prejudice. The respondents submitted that the permission to appear in the examination was already granted and the appellant had appeared, rendering the issue infructuous. The Division Bench held that the appeal against a mere adjournment order was unnecessary and dismissed it, directing the writ court to hear the main petition expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Writ Law - Maintainability of Appeal - Adjournment Order - Appeal against a day order adjourning the matter is unnecessary and not maintainable - The writ court merely recorded arguments and adjourned; no final order was passed - Held that such an appeal is not maintainable and parties must adjudicate issues on merits before the writ court (Paras 2-5).
B) Disability Rights - Public Employment - Urgent Hearing - Rights of differently abled persons under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The appellant sought permission to appear in computer-based examination for Sports Coach post - Permission was granted and appellant appeared - Held that the main writ petition should be heard expeditiously to protect the interests of differently abled persons (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ appeal lies against a mere adjournment order passed by the writ court, and whether the appellant's rights as a differently abled person require urgent hearing of the main writ petition.
Final Decision
The Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs. The writ court is requested to hear the main writ petition as expeditiously as possible.
Law Points
- Writ appeal against adjournment order is not maintainable
- parties to adjudicate issues on merits before writ court
- writ court requested to hear matter expeditiously
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 18
W.A.No.633 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.6003 of 2026
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender
R. Prabhakaran (for appellant), U.M. Ravichandran (Special Government Pleader for R1), N.S. Tanvi (Standing Counsel for R2)
The Principal Secretary to Government, Youth Welfare and Sports Development, Government of Tamil Nadu; The Chief Executive Officer / Member Secretary, SDAT & Ex-Officio Director, Youth Affair & Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against an adjournment order passed by the writ court in a writ petition seeking permission to appear in a computer-based examination for the post of Sports Coach.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the order dated 03.02.2026 in W.M.P.No.4308 of 2026 in W.P.No.3894 of 2026 and sought urgent hearing of the main writ petition.
Filing Reason
The appellant, a differently abled person, filed the writ petition to compel the respondents to issue a hall ticket for the computer-based examination scheduled on 04.02.2026. The writ court adjourned the matter, and the appellant appealed against the adjournment.
Previous Decisions
The writ court on 03.02.2026 recorded arguments and adjourned the matter to 10.02.2026; subsequently, the matter was further adjourned at the appellant's request.
Issues
Whether a writ appeal lies against a mere adjournment order passed by the writ court.
Whether the appellant's rights as a differently abled person require urgent hearing of the main writ petition.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The rights of differently abled persons under the statute must be protected; delay in disposal would cause prejudice; the selection process is ongoing and the writ should be heard urgently.
Respondents: The permission to appear in the examination was already granted and the appellant appeared; the issue raised does not exist as of today.
Ratio Decidendi
An appeal against a mere adjournment order is unnecessary and not maintainable; parties must adjudicate issues on merits before the writ court. The writ court should hear the matter expeditiously, especially when rights of differently abled persons are involved.
Judgment Excerpts
The present intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent has been instituted challenging the day order passed by the writ Court on 03.02.2026 in W.M.P.No.4308 of 2026 in W.P.No.3894 of 2026.
That being the case, the present writ petition is unnecessary and parties are at liberty to adjudicate the issues on merits before the writ Court and the writ Court is requested to hear the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Procedural History
The appellant filed W.P.No.3894 of 2026 seeking direction to issue hall ticket for examination on 04.02.2026. On 03.02.2026, the writ court recorded arguments and adjourned to 10.02.2026. The matter was further adjourned at appellant's request. The appellant then filed W.A.No.633 of 2026 against the adjournment order. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on 27.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Letters Patent (Madras): Clause 15
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016:
