WP No.12650 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22-09-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.12650 of 2017
M.Natarajan .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Home (Police II) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner Officer Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore,
Chennai-08.
3.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai-4. .. Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.12650 of 2017
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents
herein to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sub Inspector of Police based
on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.21828 of 2006
etc., in Civil Appeal No.7667 of 2014 etc., dated 07.08.2014 with all
consequential service and monetary benefits in the interest of justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murugavel
For Respondent-2 : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms.Sowmiya Dattan
For Respondents-1 and 3 : Mr.S.Rajesh,
Government Advocate.
ORDER
The Writ of Mandamus has been filed to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sub Inspector of Police based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.21828 of 2006 etc., in Civil Appeal No.7667 of 2014 etc., dated 07.08.2014 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12650 of 2017
2. The petitioner participated in the process of selection for direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police under 80% quota allotted for Open Market Candidates. The petitioner was successful in the process of selection. He scored 59.18 marks and belongs to Schedule Caste Community. Thus he is entitled to be selected and appointed to the post of Sub Inspector of Police.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner scored 59.18 marks and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the least cut off marks in any other District across the State of Tamil Nadu are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of selection and appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police.
4. However, the petitioner is unable to establish that any one of that SC candidates below the cut off mark of 67.18 was appointed in Chennai Range. Thus, the contention of the petitioner not supported by any documents or evidences and such statements without any basis cannot be 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12650 of 2017 considered for the purpose of grant of appointment.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State made a submission that the petitioner scored 59.18 marks and he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. The cut off mark for SC Community at Chennai Range is 67.18 marks. Since the petitioner has not secured the required the cut of marks, he was not selected and thus there is no infirmity.
6. Regarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the learned Additional Advocate General reiterated that the directions were scrupulously followed and the candidates were categorised and accordingly selection procedures were made and concluded long back. That apart, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2017 after a lapse of 20 years from the year of selection i.e., in the year 1997. That such belated claims cannot be entertained by the Courts.
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12650 of 2017 itself is highly belated and the petitioner participated in the process of selection of the year 1997. All along he was a fence-sitter and looking forward about the cases, litigations filed by the other candidates, which went upto Supreme Court and after reaching the finality, he has chosen to file the present writ petition in the year 2017 i.e., after a lapse of 20 years.
8. The counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, more specifically, paragraphs 23 and 26 read as under:-
“23. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner stated in the writ petition Para No.10 that the Hon'ble Apex Court order is in Rem. However, it may be applicable in Rem but this will not be applicable to this petitioner, since the Hon'ble High Court has delivered the order in WP No.26325 of 2015 in Para No.45 that the petitioners in Category III (those who filed writ petitions during the year 2014 and 2015) has held that '45. The petitioners in Category III cases have approached the Court only after the judgment in 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12650 of 2017 K.K.Senthil Kumar's case and did not agitate their grievance for quite long time. On account of such a lapse of time and belated approach, they are not entitled to get the relief of parity with petitioners with regard to Category I and II, though they are similarly placed. In the considered opinion of the Court, the claim of the petitioners are hit by delay and laches in the facts and circumstances of their case and hence, equitable jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised in their favour.' Therefore, the petitioner herein has approached this Hon'ble Court only after the common order of the WP No.26325 of 2016 and moreover he has not come under the Category of I, II and III petitioners, hence it has rightly to be dismissed in-limine.
26. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner in Para No.15 will not be applicable, since the petitioner herein is neither a party to SLP (C) No.21828 of 2006 nor a 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12650 of 2017 petitioner in WP No.26325 of 2015, hence it is not feasible for this Board to consider the petitioner's request to extend the benefits granted in SLP (C) No.21828 of 2006.”
9. With reference to the said contentions, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that one Mr.Pandian was appointed, who scored lesser marks.
10. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the second respondent replied by stating that those candidates, who approached at the first instance only after the selection process, the Apex Court passed orders and based on the orders. those persons were selected and appointed. However, such orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at this length of time, cannot be considered for grant of appointment to the writ petitioner, since he approached this Court after a lapse of 20 years from the date of selection process.
11. The learned Additional Advocate General for the second 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12650 of 2017 respondent further brought to the notice of this Court that the persons, who approached belatedly in the year 2015, their claims were not entertained and this Court dismissed their writ petitions. The petitioner was not a party even in the writ petitions filed in the year 2015.
12. The persons, who have not approached the Court within a reasonable period of time alone, are to be considered for grant of relief and the fence-sitters cannot be considered for granting the relief after several years from the date on which the cause of action aroused. Even on merits, the petitioner was not within the zone of consideration as the cut off marks at Chennai Range for SC Community was 67.18 marks and the petitioner scored 59.18 marks and for all these reasons, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
22-09-2022 Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12650 of 2017 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn To
1.The Secretary to Government, Secretary to Government, Home (Police II) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner Officer Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-08.
3.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12650 of 2017 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn WP 12650 of 2017 22-09-2022 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis