Madras High Court

Gunasekaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 April, 2022

                                                                 W.P.(MD) Nos.6111, 6112, 6113, 6114 &
                                                                              6115 of 2019


                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED: 13.04.2022

                                                        CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM


                                   W.P.(MD) Nos.6111, 6112, 6113, 6114 & 6115 of 2019



                 Gunasekaran                                               ... Petitioner in W.P.
                                                                               (MD) No.6111 of 2019

                 S.M.Muniasamy                                             ... Petitioner in W.P.
                                                                               (MD) No.6112 of 2019

                 A.Marimuthu                                               ... Petitioner in W.P.
                                                                               (MD) No.6113 of 2019

                 R.Balakrishnan                                            ... Petitioner in W.P.
                                                                               (MD) No.6114 of 2019

                 T.Nagarajan                                               ... Petitioner in W.P.
                                                                               (MD) No.6115 of 2019
                                                          vs.


                 1.The State of Tamil Nadu
                   rep.by Secretary to Government
                   Home (Police II) Department
                   Fort St.George, Chennai-9

                 2.The Chairman
                   T.N.Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
                   No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai-2

                 _______________
                 Page 1 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                             W.P.(MD) Nos.6111, 6112, 6113, 6114 &
                                                                          6115 of 2019



                 3.The Director General of Police
                   Office of DGP
                   Post Box No.601
                   Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
                   Mylapore, Chennai-600 004                       ... Respondents in all W.Ps.

PRAYER (in all W.Ps): Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus directing 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 and in W.A.No.

1252 of 2016 batch of cases dated 24.01.2019 and in the light of G.O.(Ms) No.

760, Home (Police-3) Department, dated 16.10.2017 with all consequential

service and monetary benefits in the interest of justice within the time frame

fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar b (in all W.Ps.)

For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan (in all W.Ps.) Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.6111, 6112, 6113, 6114 & 6115 of 2019

COMMON ORDER

All these writ petitions are filed seeking a direction to the

respondents to appoint the petitioners in the post of Sub Inspector of Police

based on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.21828 of

2006 etc., in Civil Appeal No.7667 of 2014 etc., dated 07.08.2014 and in W.A.

(MD) No.1252 of 2016 etc., dated 24.01.2019 and in the light of G.O.(Ms) No.

760, Home (Police.3) Department, dated 16.10.2017 with all consequential

service and monetary benefits in the interest of justice, within the time frame

fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioners state that they are working as Special Sub

Inspectors in Tamil Nadu Police Department. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed

Services Recruitment Board invited applications from the eligible candidates

for appoint to the post of Sub Inspector of Police Category-I under 20% quota

from departmental candidates. The petitioners submitted their applications

and participated in the process of selection in Ramnad Range in all the three

stages, namely, physical efficiency test, written test and viva voce.

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.6111, 6112, 6113, 6114 & 6115 of 2019

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the similarly placed

persons, whose cases were not considered for appointment to the post of Sub

Inspector of Police, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and

thereafter High Court and thereafter the Honourable Supreme Court. The

Apex Court passed an order directing the Department to extend the benefits

granted by the High Court to all the similarly placed persons, if they are

otherwise eligible and qualified based on the marks secured by them in the

selection process. The Apex Court further held that the benefits granted to the

similarly placed persons need not be restricted to the persons, who

approached the Court, but it is to be extended to the persons, who have not

approached the Court, but eligible for selection and appointment.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

respondents contended that the claim of all those persons was considered and

in some cases, the Department rejected the claim of those persons and second

round of litigations were filed by them before the High Court and the claim of

those persons were directed to be considered and they were appointed

accordingly.

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.6111, 6112, 6113, 6114 & 6115 of 2019

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the persons, who

were all along waiting till the disposal of all these litigations, filed fresh writ

petitions in the year 2014-2015. In other words, third batch of writ petitions

was filed belatedly after the disposal of cases by the Honourable Supreme

Court. All such cases were tagged together and a common Judgment was

passed by this Court by elaborately considering the issues on 27.01.2016.

This Court has dealt with Category-III, which all are falling under the category

of delay and latches. In this regard, this Court observed as follows:

“Issue No.III

39. In Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another [(2000) 6 SCC 359] it has been held that if the judgment of the High Court has come up to the Supreme Court by way of a special leave, and special leave is granted and the appeal is disposed of with or without reasons, by affirmative or otherwise, the judgment of the High Court merges with that of the Supreme Court. In that event, it is not permissible to move the High Court by review because the judgment of 63 the High Court has merged with the judgment of the Supreme Court. It has been further held that dismissal of SLP by the words “dismissed on merits” would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.6111, 6112, 6113, 6114 & 6115 of 2019

have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court; the dismissal is not of the appeal but of the special leave petition and even if the merits have been gone into, they are the merits of the special leave petition only and neither doctrine of merger nor Article 141 of the Constitution is attracted to such an order.

40. This Court, while answering Issue No.I has dealt with the case of Mr.M.Muthukumar/petitioner in W.P.No.25146 of 2014 and S.L.P(C)No.3950-3951 of 2014, which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay with costs and in the light of the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions, it cannot be said that the order of dismissal in W.P.No.27969/2007 on the ground of laches merge with the order of dismissal passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petitions.

41. Therefore, Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.IV

42. In the light of the findings/answers given to Issue Nos.I to III, the petitioners in Category I and II, both in Principal Bench as well as Madurai Bench, are entitled to succeed. Insofar as the petitioner in 64 W.P.No.25146 2014 is concerned, if records are

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.6111, 6112, 6113, 6114 & 6115 of 2019

available he has to undergo viva-voce test; otherwise the findings rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 5 and 6 of the decision in K.K.Senthil Kumar's case would come into operation.

43. This Court has to deal with Category III cases where the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions during the years 2014 and 2015 respectively, after the above cited judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.K.Senthil Kumar's case. It is to be noted at this juncture that the petitioners were fence sitters and waited on the side lines as to the result of the litigation and after becoming aware of the judgment in K.K.Senthil Kumar's case referred to supra, has jumped into the fray by filing writ petitions during the years 2014 and 2015 respectively and pray for their appointment as Sub-Inspectors of Police.

44. In Rup Diamonds and Others v. Union of India and Others [AIR 1989 SC 674 = (1989) 2 SCC 356], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

"Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.6111, 6112, 6113, 6114 & 6115 of 2019

case came to be decided. Their case cannot be considered on the analogy of one where a law had been declared unconstitutional and void by a court, so as to enable persons to recover monies paid under the compulsion of a law later so declared void. There is also an unexplained, inordinate delay in preferring 65 the present writ petition which is brought after a year after the first rejection. As observed by the Court in Durga Prashad case, the exchange position of this country and the policy of the government regarding international trade varies from year to year.

In these matters it is essential that persons who are aggrieved by orders of the government should approach the High Court after exhausting the remedies provided by law, rule or order with utmost expedition. Therefore, these delays are sufficient to persuade the Court to decline to interfere. If a right of appeal is available, this order rejecting the writ petition shall not prejudice petitioners' case in any such appeal." (emphasis supplied)

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.6111, 6112, 6113, 6114 & 6115 of 2019

45. The petitioners in Category III cases has approached the Court only after the judgment in K.K.Senthil Kumar's case and did not agitate their grievance for quite longtime. 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.”

6. In the penultimate portion of the order, this Court has held as

follows:

“(ix) The writ petitions in respect of Category III, are dismissed. No costs.”

7. The present writ petitions were filed in the year 2019 even

beyond those writ petitions were decided by this Court in the year 2016 and

after a lapse of 22 years from the date of selection i.e.1997-1998. In view of

the fact that the petitioners have slept over their right and filed the present

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.6111, 6112, 6113, 6114 & 6115 of 2019

writ petitions after a lapse of 22 years, the relief as such sought for cannot be

considered as the issues were settled by the Honourable Supreme Court long

back and such settled issues cannot now be unsettled and in the event of any

such appointment based on the selection of the year 1997-1998, the services

of many other candidates will be affected and therefore, all these writ petitions

are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.