Madras High Court
M.Natarajan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 September, 2022
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.12650 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 12650 of 2017
22-09-2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
