Madras High Court

R.E.Dayalan vs The State Represented By on 12 September, 2022

                                                                        W.P.Nos.9875 and 9876 of 2016

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 12.09.2022

                                                    CORAM :

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                          W.P.Nos.9875 and 9876 of 2016

                    W.P.No.9875 of 2016:

                    R.E.Dayalan                                                   ... Petitioner
                                                        Vs.
                    1.The State represented by
                      Principal Secretary to Government
                      Home (Police II) Department
                      Fort St George, Chennai – 9.

                    2.The Chairman/Director General of Police
                      T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
                      Egmore, Chennai – 8.

                    3.The Director General of Police
                      Mylapore, Chennai – 4.                                     ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Na.Ka.No.D1/3364/2014 dated 29.12.2014 and the order of the 1st respondent in letter No.84226/Pol.III/2014-15 dated 13.04.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to select the petitioner in pursuance of the marks secured by the petitioner based on the decision of the Honourable High Court and Supreme Court in SLP No.21828/2006, etc in Civil Appeal No.7667/2014, etc and Civil Appeal No.7674-7681/2014 in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SLP (C) No.10304-10305/2009, 11005-11008/2011 and SLP (C)

W.P.Nos.9875 and 9876 of 2016

No.8127, 9377/2012 dated 07.08.2014 based on the marks secured by the petitioner in the selection process conducted for the year 1997-98 and appoint him as Sub-Inspector of Police, Category-I and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

W.P.No.9876 of 2016:

                    A.Thiyagarajan                                                ... Petitioner
                                                        Vs.
                    1.The State of Tamil Nadu

Rep by Principal Secretary to Government Home (Police II) Department Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Chairman/Director General of Police T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

3.The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Na.Ka.No.D1/03365/2014 dated 29.12.2014 and the order of the 1st respondent in letter No.84331/Pol.3/2014-15 dated 13.04.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to select the petitioner in pursuance of the marks secured by the petitioner based on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court in SLP No.21828/2006, etc in Civil Appeal No.7667/2014, etc and Civil Appeal No.7674-7681/2014 in SLP (C) No.10304-10305/2009, 11005-11008/2011 and SLP (C) No.8127, 9377/2012 dated 07.08.2014 based on the marks secured by the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.9875 and 9876 of 2016

in the selection process conducted for the year 1997-98 and appoint him as Sub-Inspector of Police, Category-I and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

                                     For Petitioners      : Mr.K.Venkataramani
                                                            Senior Counsel
                                                            For Mr.M.Muthappan
                                                            (in both W.Ps)

                                     For R1 & R3          : Mr.K.H.Ravi Kumar
                                                            Government Advocate
                                                            (in both W.Ps)

                                     For R2               : Mr.P.Kumaresan
                                                            Additional Advocate General
                                                            Assisted by Ms.D.Sowmi Dattan
                                                            (in both W.Ps)

                                                        COMMON ORDER

The relief sought for in the present writ petitions is to call for the

records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned orders

passed by him in Na.Ka.No.D1/3364/2014 and Na.Ka.No.D1/03365/2014

dated 29.12.2014 and the order of the 1st respondent in letter

No.84226/Pol.III/2014-15 and letter No.84331/Pol.III/2014-15 dated

13.04.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to select the

petitioner in pursuance of the marks secured by the petitioner based on the

decision of the Honourable High Court and Supreme Court in SLP

No.21828/2006, etc in Civil Appeal No.7667/2014, etc and Civil Appeal

No.7674-7681/2014 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in SLP (C) No.10304-10305/2009, 11005-

W.P.Nos.9875 and 9876 of 2016

11008/2011 and SLP (C) No.8127, 9377/2012 dated 07.08.2014 based on

the marks secured by the petitioner in the selection process conducted for

the year 1997-98 and appoint him as Sub-Inspector of Police, Category-I

and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

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 Chennai

Range in all the three stages, namely, physical efficiency test, written test

and viva voce.

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

W.P.Nos.9875 and 9876 of 2016

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.

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

W.P.Nos.9875 and 9876 of 2016

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis delay with costs and in the light of the ratio laid down

W.P.Nos.9875 and 9876 of 2016

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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Kumar's case referred to supra, has jumped into the

W.P.Nos.9875 and 9876 of 2016

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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis prejudice petitioners' case in any such appeal."

W.P.Nos.9875 and 9876 of 2016

(emphasis supplied)

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 during March 2016 even

beyond those writ petitions were decided by this Court in January 2016

and after a lapse of 19 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 writ petitions after a lapse of 19 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.9875 and 9876 of 2016

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.