Dismissed

The Secretary v. a.Babu Prasanth

Madras HC29 Jan 2026CMP/1299/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission seeking to condone an 1811-day delay in representing writ appeal papers. The Court held that the Commission, being a constitutional authority with a functional legal cell, offered no acceptable reasons for the inaction and thus could not condone the delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for condonation of delay dismissed; Writ Appeals rejected at the соединений stage.

The Secretary Vs a.Babu Prasanth — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CMP Nos. 1299 and 1301 of 2026 in WA.SR.Nos.80073 and 80089 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-01-2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI CMP Nos. 1299 and 1301 of 2026 in WA SR Nos. 80073 and 80089 OF 2020

¶6

CMP No.1299 of 2026

¶7

The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai 600 003

¶8

The Controller Of Examinations Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai 600 003

¶9

.. Petitioners

¶10

¶11

A.Babu Prasanth S/o. Alagarsamy No. 12 / 4 / 41-A, Main Road, South Street, Reddiarpatty, Kannivadi Post, Dindigul 624 705

¶12

S. Selvakumari Headmistress, Chennai Girls Higher Secondary School 2-A, School Road, Perambur, Chennai 600 011.

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

CMP No. 1301 of 2026

¶15

The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai 600 003

¶16

__________ Page 1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CMP Nos. 1299 and 1301 of 2026 in WA.SR.Nos.80073 and 80089 of 2020

¶19

The Controller Of Examinations Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai 600 003

¶20

.. Petitioners

¶21

¶22

A.Babu Prasanth S/o. Alagarsamy No. 12 / 4 / 41-A, Main Road, South Street, Reddiarpatty, Kannivadi Post, Dindigul 624 705

¶23

S. Selvakumari Headmistress, Chennai Girls Higher Secondary School 2-A, School Road, Perambur, Chennai 600 011.

¶24

..Respondent(s)

¶25

Prayer in CMP No. 1299 of 2026 : To condone the delay of 1811 days in representing the writ appeal WA.SR.No.80073/2020 as against the order dated 14.02.2020 passed in WP.No.22670/2019

¶26

Prayer in CMP No. 1301 of 2026 : To condone the delay of 1811 days in representing the writ appeal WA.SR.No.80089/2020 as against the order dated 14.02.2020 passed in WP.No.113/2020.

¶27

Prayer in WA.SR.No.80073 of 2020 : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14.02.2020 in W.P.No.22670 of 2019.

¶28

Prayer in WA.SR.No.80089 of 2020 : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14.02.2020 in W.P.No.113 of 2020.

¶29

In both CMPs

¶30

For Petitioners : Mr. I.Abrar Md Abdullah

¶31

__________ Page 2 of 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

CMP Nos. 1299 and 1301 of 2026 in WA.SR.Nos.80073 and 80089 of 2020

¶34

Order

¶35

(Order of the Court was made by R.Suresh Kumar J.)

¶36

These petitions have been filed to condone the huge delay of 1811 days in representing the writ appeal papers in WA.SR.Nos.80073 and 80089 of 2020.

¶37

In support of these petitions, a common affidavit dated NIL.Nov/2025 has been filed, where, in Para 17 the following has been stated.

¶38

“ 17. I submit that upon deliberations the petitioners had decided to prefer an appeal as against the order dated 14.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.113 of 2020 passed by this Hon’ble Court and had taken various steps to prefer the appeal. The copy application was made on 14.02.2020 and the same was made ready on 10.03.2020 and delivered on 16.03.2020. I further submit that thereafter the appeal was filed on 18.11.2020 in WA.SR.Nos.80073 and 80099 of 2020 with a delay. I submit that thereafter the said appeals came to be returned on 23.11.2020. Thereafter the said appeals were not represented for curing the defects as pointed out in the return. Only the return sheet along with certain papers were available with the Commission. Therefore in order to reconstruct and consolidate all the papers certain amount of time had been spent and the said delay is neither wilful nor wanton and beyond the control of the Commission.”

¶39

Except this paragraph nothing has been stated about the huge delay that has occurred in representing the case papers. Even in this paragraph, it is only mentioned that the writ appeals were filed belatedly and the same after scrutiny were returned by the Registry of the High Court on 23.11.2020. Thereafter, the said appeals were not represented for curing the defects as pointed out in the return. It

¶40

Page 3 of 6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

CMP Nos. 1299 and 1301 of 2026 in WA.SR.Nos.80073 and 80089 of 2020

¶43

is further stated that only the return sheet along with certain papers were available with the Commission. Therefore in order to reconstruct and consolidate all the papers certain amount of time had been spent and the said delay is neither wilful nor wanton and beyond the control of the Commission.

¶44

Except these lines, since nothing has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions to condone the huge delay of 1811 days in representing the appeals, we must look into the way in which the matter has been dealt with by TNPSC at their end in representing the papers, whether it is acceptable for this Court to condone such a huge delay or not.

¶45

TNPSC is a constitutional authority and it has a well established office, where a separate legal cell is formed and functioning. Several sections are there in TNPSC legal cell and officers like Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Section Officer, Assistant Section Officers, Assistants and other people are working in the legal cell. Day in and day out the work of the legal cell of TNPSC involves only to see the legal matters both for and against the TNPSC.

¶46

A battery of lawyers are nominated and are effectively working as Standing Counsel for the TNPSC. While that being so, the reasons cited in Para 17 of the affidavit for such a huge delay in that certain papers were not available with the Commission and for reconstruction of the same it took more than five years. Since

¶47

Page 4 of 6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

CMP Nos. 1299 and 1301 of 2026 in WA.SR.Nos.80073 and 80089 of 2020

¶50

this reason is stated by the TNPSC in a most cavalier manner without any substance, without any acceptable reasons and it cannot fit into any norms of the functioning of a constitutional authority like TNPSC, we are not inclined to accept the same.

¶51

If this kind of belated applications, without any reason are accepted to condone such a huge delay of 1811 days, certainly that would set a bad precedent and this will be shown as precedent in future cases by many authorities like TNPSC to justify their inaction in taking steps to prefer the appeals in time and represent the papers after rectifying the defects pointed out by the Registry of this Court or any such judicial forum.

¶52

Therefore, looking from any angle, absolutely there is no reason or rhyme to accept these petitions to condone the delay of 1811 days in representing the papers. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions, as a result, the same are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the WA.SR.Nos.80073 and 80089 of 2020 are rejected at the SR stage itself.

¶53

(R.S.K.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 29-01-2026

¶54

Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST

¶55

Note : Issue order copy on 30.01.2026

¶56

Page 5 of 6

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

CMP Nos. 1299 and 1301 of 2026 in WA.SR.Nos.80073 and 80089 of 2020

¶59

R.SURESH KUMAR J. AND K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J.

¶60

KST

¶61

CMP Nos. 1299 and 1301 of 2026 in WA.SR.Nos.80073 and 80089 of 2020

¶62

29-01-2026

¶63

__________ Page 6 of 6

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Secretary v. a.Babu Prasanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary v. a.Babu Prasanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Vs K Nagarajan

The Secretary to Government Vs N. Venkatesh

The Secretary to the Government Vs R. Madhusudhanan

The Secretary to Government Vs E. Suganthi

Government of Tamil Nadu Vs J Pandi

The Director of School Education Vs Renganathan