THE CORPORATE MANAGER CORPORATE EDUCATION AGENCY OF SCHOOLS vs SAM JOSEPH — C.A. No. 6381/2010
Case under Section XI-B. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010225672009
Filing Date
31-Jul-2009
Registration No
C.A. No. 6381/2010
Diary Number
22567/2009
Order Date
28-Aug-2019
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Disposed Off
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE CORPORATE MANAGER CORPORATE EDUCATION AGENCY OF SCHOOLS
Adv. ROMY CHACKO (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Respondent(s)
-
1.SAM JOSEPH
Adv. C. K. SASI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
28-Aug-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Aug-2019
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph
-
22-Aug-2019
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph
-
21-Aug-2019
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph
-
12-Apr-2018
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
-
31-Jan-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Sep-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Sep-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Aug-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Jul-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Apr-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Mar-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Feb-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Jan-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Nov-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Aug-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Jul-2009
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 6381/2010
Case Summary In Civil Appeal No. 6381/2010, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal on August 28, 2019, without examining the merits of the controversy. The case involved the Corporate Manager's claim for consideration of appointment as HSST (Commerce) at Mount Carmel Higher Secondary School for Girls, Kottayam. The Court found that after a decade had elapsed since the original writ petition was dismissed (2006), the original petitioners (respondents 4 and 5) had no interest in the matter and failed to appear despite being served. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal leaving the question of law open, as it deemed no purpose would be served by examining the controversy in the absence of the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts