The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition seeking promotion to Sub-Inspector and Inspector. The Court held that the 18-year delay in filing the representation precluded interference.
Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Writ Appeal No.2686 of 2012
P.Natarajan
... Appellant/Petitioner Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
4.S.Megakumar
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Crime Branch, Chennai. ... Respondents/Respondents [4th respondent is given up as per Court order dated 07.12.2021 made in W.A.No.2686 of 2012]
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 17.02.2011 made in W.P.No.3662 of 2011.
Prayer in W.P. No.3662 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by disposing of his representation dated 23.04.2010 as considered in the case of the fourth respondent.
For Appellant : Mr.A.R.Suresh For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Additional Government Pleader R4 : Given up vide Court order dated 07.12.2021
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.3662 of 2011, dated 17.02.2011, the writ petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal.
2.The appellant filed the writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by disposing of his representation, dated 23.04.2010, as considered in the case of the 4th respondent. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he should have been given promotion as Sub-Inspector with effect from the year 1992 and also further promotion to the post of Inspector subsequently.
3.It is pertinent to note that, for the promotion to be given in the year 1992, the appellant submitted his representation only in the year 2010, i.e., after a lapse of nearly 18 years. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the delay in submitting the appellant's representation, dismissed the writ petition, finding that, if the appellant's representation is considered, that will unsettle the settled things. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271 [P.S.Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu). wherein, the Apex Court held that, as far as promotion is concerned, one should approach the Court within a period of six moths and in extraordinary cases, within a period of one year. When the petitioner had filed the writ petition only in the year 2010, after a lapse of 18 years, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
4.We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits, hence, the same is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mkn
To
2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore.
+1cc to Mr.A.R.Suresh, Advocate SR.No.5300
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.No.5144
Writ Appeal No.2686 of 2012
PMK(CO) GN(15/02/2022)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petitionDue to delay of 18 years in filing representation for promotion.
P. Natarajan
Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department
Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu
Deputy Inspector General of Police
M. DURAISWAMY
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
