Madras High Court
P.Pon Pandian vs The Secretary To Government on 29 August, 2023
W.P.No.25742 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.25742 of 2010 and
MP.No.1 of 2010
P.Pon Pandian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home (Police IV) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009
2.The Director General of Police/Chairman,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
3.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second
respondent to add adequate marks to the petitioner making him eligible
for recruitment to the Post of Sub Inspector of Police in Uniformed
Services under 2nd respondent for 2006.
For Petitioner : M/s.V.V.Sathya
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25742 of 2010
For Respondents
For R1 & 3 : Mr.M.Muthusamy,
Government Advocate
For R2 : Ms.J.Sudeksha
for
Mr.Sowri Dattan,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for direction to the second
respondent to add adequate marks to the petitioner making him eligible
for the recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in Uniformed
Services.
2. The petitioner is now working as Grade I Constable. As per
the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment
Board, invited applications for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of
police. The petitioner applied for and had written examination. After
examination, he was called for interview. He ultimately scored 71 marks
in total. The petitioner being Most Backward Class community, the cutoff
mark for selection was 73 and as such shortage of 2 marks.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25742 of 2010
petitioner was allotted only one mark in the viva, that too 0.25 for the
certificate produced by him and 0.5 marks awarded in the interview.
4. On perusal of records, the exam was conducted in the year
2007 and interview was also over in the year 2007. The entire selection
process was over in the year 2007 itself. After period of 3 years, the
petitioner filed this writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner failed to file
this writ petition immediately after publication of results. He had been
watching the proceedings in a batch of writ petitions filed by the
candidates challenging the wrong answer given in the answer key. Those
writ petitions ended in favour of the writ petitioners and subsequently it
was set aside in the writ appeal. Therefore, the action of the petitioner is
definitely treated as fence sitter as per the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sandeep Kumar dated
01.09.2017, wherein it is held as follows:
45. Recently, the Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors.,
(2015) 1 SCC 347 had examined this issue on the
question of judgments in service law which lay down a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25742 of 2010
principle and, therefore, are treated as judgments in rem
in the second sense. Several decisions on both sides
were referred to and the following legal principles were
set out:-
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the
reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the
appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up
as under.
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set
of employees is given relief by the court, all other
identically situated persons need to be treated alike by
extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to
discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be
applied in service matters more emphatically as the
service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to
time postulates that all similarly situated persons should
be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would
be that merely because other similarly situated persons
did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be
treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-
recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25742 of 2010
as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not
challenge the wrongful action in their cases and
acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay
only because of the reason that their counterparts who
had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in
their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the
benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They would be
treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or
the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss
their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in
those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court
was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all
similarly situated persons, whether they approached the
court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation
is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit
thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation
can occur when the subject-matter of the decision
touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of
regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of
India [K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721
: 1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other hand, if the
judgment of the court was in personam holding that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25742 of 2010
benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties
before the court and such an intention is stated
expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found
out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those
who want to get the benefit of the said judgment
extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition
does not suffer from either laches and delays or
acquiescence."
5. Therefore, delay and laches as well as acquiescence can be a
ground to deny benefit to fence sitters. Those who do not approach the
Court in a timely and prompt manner can be denied 'equal treatment'.
Therefore, the direction sought for in this writ petition cannot be
considered. As such, this writ petition is devoid of merits.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
29.08.2023
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25742 of 2010
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home (Police IV) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009
2.The Director General of Police/Chairman,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
3.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
4. The Government Advocate,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25742 of 2010
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
W.P.No.25742 of 2010
29.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
