(Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to direct speedy disposal of W.M.P.No.13661 of 2026 in W.P. No.12491 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned Single Judge.)

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ.

1. This writ appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the procedural listing directions issued in W.P. No.12491 of 2026, currently pending consideration before the learned Single Judge.

2. At the threshold, this court raised a query about the maintainability of the writ appeal against a direction issued to list the writ petition along with other connected writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that:

                     (i) The learned Single Judge committed a material irregularity by failing to consider the matter on its independent merits as contemplated under Rule 19 of the Madras High Court Rules, choosing instead to relegate it to a mere adjournment.

                     (ii) Parallel challenges concerning the selfsame examination had already been evaluated by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No. 2052 of 2026, wherein, by order dated 24.2.2026, he had directed a CBCID investigation.

                     (iii) A Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 09.03.2026 in W.P.Nos.436 and 438 of 2026 had expressly permitted the respondent authorities to fill up the vacancies, subject only to leaving 47 posts vacant.

                     (iv) By keeping the present petition in limbo and tagging it with an entirely distinct prayer, the learned Single Judge has effectively paralyzed the appointment process, causing severe prejudice and financial hardship to selected candidates.

4. Before venturing into the substantive merits of the grounds urged by the appellants, this Court is confronted with a fundamental threshold barrier concerning the maintainability of this appeal.

5. The statutory anchor for this intra-court appeal is Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court. It is a foundational principle of appellate jurisprudence that an appeal under Clause 15 is viable only when preferred against a "judgment" rendered by a learned Single Judge. Clause 15 explicitly provides:

                     "We do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Madras from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction...) of one Judge of the said High Court..."

6. The core issue is whether a routine case-management entry, a e-court status update, or an order purely tracking the administrative business of the court, such as "Post along with W.P.No.9839/2026", can be judicially stretched to satisfy the legal definition of a "judgment."

7. The phrase "judgment" cannot be distorted to encompass every interlocutory or case-management directive passed for the orderly conduct of a proceeding. To qualify as an appealable judgment, the order must possess the characteristics of finality; it must conclusively determine, or at the very least vitally affect, the substantial rights and obligations of the parties regarding the main controversy or an independent ancillary issue.

8. A routine procedural order directing a case to be listed alongside an allied matter is a salutary step taken to prevent conflicting judicial pronouncements. It determines no rights, resolves no controversy, and does not terminate the litigation. It is simply an administrative-judicial step in aid of justice, residing squarely within the absolute discretion of the learned Judge. It underscores that the learned Single Judge has not yet decided about the admissibility of the case under Rule 19 of the Rules, but has simply rescheduled the hearing of the matter. A mere entry in the e-court case status cannot be made the subject-matter of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. If such ministerial and W.A.No.1546 of 2026 docket-management exercises are elevated to the status of appealable judgments, it would open the floodgates of vexatious appellate litigation, severely disrupting the institutional hierarchy and the functional independence of the writ courts.

9. Accordingly, we hold that the e-court case status or an order of adjournment does not possess the traits of a "judgment" within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The writ appeal is, therefore, entirely not maintainable. As the appeal founders on the bedrock of maintainability, this Court refrains from adjudicating upon the merits of the selection process.

10. However, taking into consideration the plea that the appellants' careers are hanging in the balance, we deem it fit to ensure that they are not left without an avenue for redressal. Therefore, while dismissing the writ appeal as not maintainable, we grant liberty to the appellants to move the learned Single Judge dealing with W.P.No.12491 of 2026 for an expeditious disposal of the main writ petition on its own merits. W.A.No.1546 of 2026 There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected interim application stands closed.