Madras High Court
D.Sumathi … vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 November, 2025
W.P. No. 17488 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On : 13.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
W.P. No. 17488 of 2019
D.Sumathi …Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. By its Secretary
Adi-Dravida & Tribal Welfare Department
St. George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare
Chepalk, Chennai.
3. The District Adi-Dravida & Tribal Welfare Officer
Vellore District, Vellore.
4. The Special Tahsildar, Thirupathur,
Vellore District.
5. S.Prabu, Second Grade-Headmaster,
Adi Dravidar Welfare Primary School,
T.T.Mottoor, Vellore District.
6. S.Moses
7. T.Balan
8. P.Perumal
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
W.P. No. 17488 of 2019
9. M.Senthamarai Selvi
10.M.Raja
11.S.Kannaki
[R5 to R11 impleaded vide order dated 08.09.2023
made in WMP No. 23748 of 2023 in WP No.
17488 of 2019 by CVKJ]
...Respondents
Prayer : This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the order made in Na.Ka.K3/22170/2015 dated 13.04.2016
issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the
3rd respondent to give promotion as Head Master & Graduate teacher with all
benefits to the petitioner with effect from 2008 in the Adi Dravidar Welfare
Elementary School, Athiyur, Vellore District.
For Petitioner(s) : M/s.B.Nedunchelian & N.Vignesh
For Respondent(s) : M/s.Yamunadevi, SGP (RR1 to 4)
M/s.L.Chandrakumar for T.Dharani
(RR5 to 11)
ORDER
This writ petition is filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified
mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order made in Na.Ka. No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
K3/22170/2015 dated 13.04.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent, quash the same
and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to give promotion as Headmaster &
Graduate Teacher with all benefits to the petitioner with effect from 2008 in the
Adi Dravidar Welfare Elementary School, Athiyur, Vellore district.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel
appearing for the respondents 5 to 11 and perused the entire material available
on record.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she joined as Secondary Grade
Teacher in Adhi Dravidar Welfare (ADW) Department on 01.06.1988, and that
as she possessed B.Lit., B.E.D., M.A., and M.Phil, qualifications and was fully
qualified to be promoted as Tamil Graduate Teacher and Head Master; that in
the panel of Special Grade Teacher prepared for granting promotions during the
2008 to 2010, her name was not found; that 53 Teachers who were juniors to her
were promoted, as Secondary Grade Head Master and B.T.Assistant; that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
petitioner was promoted as Graduate Teacher vide proceedings of the second
respondent dated 09.09.2011; that the second respondent however, vide
proceedings dated 20.09.2011 issued reversion order; that though she submitted
several representation to restore her earlier position, as there was no response,
the petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P. No. 33441 of 2015 to promote her
as Graduate Teacher (BT Assistant) and Head Master as per seniority with effect
from 18.07.2008; and that the said writ petition came to be disposed of,
directing the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner
dated 06.07.2015 and pass orders in accordance with law and on merits; and that
pursuant to the said order passed by this Court in the above mentioned writ
petition, the 3rd respondent considered the representation and rejected the claim
of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 13.04.2016. Challenging the said order,
the petitioner is constrained to file the present Writ Petition.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd
respondent by the counter-affidavit contended that the petitioner was at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
Sl.No.13 in B.T.Assistant (Tamil) in the seniority list as on 01.03.2008; that the
incumbents, who were above the petitioner at Sl.No.11-R.Alamelu and Sl. No.
12-Sara Jayamani had participated in the counselling held on 27.06.2008 and
R.Alamelu was selected B.T.Assistant (Tamil) on 24.07.2008 and posted to
Government (ADW) Girls Higher Secondary School, Arakkonam and Sara
Jayamani as B.T.Assistant (Tamil) on 16.07.2008 and posted at Government
(ADW) Higher Secondary School, Pilanthipattu and also the incumbents next to
the petitioner, namely, K.Vimala (in subject seniority) was promoted and posted
as Primary Head Master on 30.07.2010 at Govt. (ADW) Primary School, Elagiri
and D.Guna Bushanam as Primary Head Master on 27.07.2009 at Govt (ADW)
Primary School, Vegamangalam.
5. It is stated that on scrutiny of the Service Registers of R.Alamelu and
Sara Jayamani, it appears that they had availed the opportunity and got
promotion as B.T.Assistant (Tamil) /Primary Head Master, but in the case of the
petitioner, she did not avail the promotion opportunity given as that would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
resulted in her transfer and the persons before and next to the petitioner have
availed the opportunity and had gone to work even in Tribal Schools in the Hill
stations. While the above being the factual position, the petitioner after almost a
lapse of seven (7) long years after being considered for promotion as Primary
Head Master (which was given on 02.03.2016), has filed Writ Petition in W.P.
No. 33441 of 2015 and W.P. No. 17488 of 2019 seeking promotion as Primary
School Head Master / B.T.Assistant from 2008-2011 retrospectively. (The
petitioner has also been promoted as B.T. Assistant on 27.10.2022.)
6. It is further contended that the petitioner herself had relinquished her
promotion as per her letter dated 13.09.2011. Hence, the petitioner's claim of
seniority for promotion as Primary Head Master /B.T.Assistant is ''void ab
nitio'' and deserves to be dismissed in limine. She has not even chosen to attend
counselling for the posts which were vacant. On one occasion when cancelling
of irregular promotions were made, the petitioner did not challenge, but
obtained stay and continued as B.T.Assistant. The petitioner got reverted as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
Secondary Grade Teacher and continued to work in Matron Govt (ADW Girls
Hostel, Tirupathur as on 20.09.2011 in the year 2011 and did not get stay for
reversion.
7. It is also stated that having failed to avail promotion opportunity and
allowed the incumbents to be promoted, after a lapse of nearly 7 long years, the
petitioner made a claim of seniority, which cannot be entertained. In this regard,
the 3rd respondent relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
P.Sadasivam Swamy -vs- State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271,
and Mudgal and Others -vs- R.P.Singh reported in 1986 SC 2086.
8. It is further contended that there was no deliberate denial of promotion
to the petitioner, and the fact remains that she had relinquished her promotion
on 13.09.2011. She had also remained a silent spectator when others were
promoted and did not raise any protest and has approached the Court after many
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
years seeking for such a relief when much water has flown in. It is also
contended that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in service matters,
the settled mattes cannot be unsettled. With these averments, the 3rd respondent
sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. On behalf of the private respondents 5 to 11, it is contended that though
the petitioner became eligible for promotion during the year 2008, the petitioner
did not participate in the promotion and transfer counselling; that as a result of
the petitioner waiving her right for promotion and transfer counselling by not
participating, promotions were given to the candidates, who are juniors to
petitioner, and were transferred on promotions; that though the petitioner was
promoted in the year 2011, the said promotion was held to be wrong, because
the seniority was not properly considered and thus, the petitioner was reverted
back on 20.09.2011.
10. On behalf of the private respondents, it is further contended that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
petitioner on being reverted questioned the said reversion by approaching this
Court by filing the writ petition vide W.P. No. 33441 of 2015 and when the writ
petition was taken up for hearing, a limited relief was sought i.e., to direct the
respondents to consider the representation dated 06.07.2015; and that this Court
by considering the nature of relief sought, by order dated 15.10.2015 directed
the respondents to dispose off the representation of the petitioner; and that in
compliance with the said directions, the impugned order has been passed by the
respondents on 13.04.2016 disposing the aforementioned representation
submitted by the petitioner and rejecting her claim.
11. On behalf of the private respondents, it is also contended that the
petitioner on being issued with proceedings dated 13.04.2016 remained silent
and after a lapse of more than 3 years, has approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition assailing the correctness of the impugned proceedings; and
that the petitioner has been promoted as B.T. Assistant during the year 2022,
which promotion she has accepted without any demur or protest, and as such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
cannot now claim retrospective promotion from the year 2008.
12. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that the claim of the
petitioner at every stage is affected by delay and laches and thus, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground.
13. I have taken note of the respective contentions.
14. At the outset, it is to be noted that the 3rd respondent by its counter-
affidavit, having taken a categorical stand of petitioner not having taken part in
the promotion and transfer counselling in the year 2008, the petitioner did not
controvert the aforesaid statement by filing a rejoinder affidavit.
15. Further, there is no material placed before the Court to show that the
petitioner having taken part in the counselling process in the year 2008 and she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
having been excluded from being considered for promotion. In absence of the
petitioner placing before this Court any material to show that she has been
excluded from being considered for promotion even though eligible and her
juniors being considered and granted promotion, the claim now made by the
petitioner, after a decade, cannot be accepted.
16. Further, if only the petitioner was denied promotion during the year
2008, the petitioner ought to have approached the authorities concerned by
submitting a representation or approaching this Court seeking appropriate relief.
No such action has been taken.
17. On the other hand, the petitioner was content on being considered for
promotion during the year 2011. However, the said promotion being held to be
wrong, the petitioner was reverted back to her position vide order dated
20.09.2011. On the order of reversion being passed, the petitioner did not take
any action to question the same and it is only after a lapse of nearly 4 years, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 33441 of 2015 and at the
time of hearing of the writ petition, sought for a direction to the respondents to
consider the representation dated 06.07.2015 submitted to the respondents just
before the filing of the said writ petition.
18. This Court without delving into the merits of the representation,
passed orders directing the respondents to consider the aforesaid representation.
It is pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the impugned order came to be passed.
Even though the impugned order came to be passed in April 2016. the petitioner
did not take any steps to assail the same immediately, if felt aggrieved. Instead,
the petitioner maintained statics silence for nearly 4 years before filing the
present writ petition, claiming as if the impugned order has affected her right
then, they giving rise to the cause of action.
19. At this point of time, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Government of India -vs- P.Venkatesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613, wherein it was held that 'dispose of the
representation' mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the
High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy
disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no
service to the cause of justice.
20. The aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, aptly apply to
the facts of the present case, as the petitioner having foregone her promotion
initially in the year 2008 and accepting promotion in the year 2011, on being
reverted questioned the said order of reversion in the year 2015. Further, during
the consideration of the said challenge, sought a direction from this Court to the
respondents to consider and dispose of the representation submitted just before
approaching this Court and on the respondent disposing of the said
representation in compliance with the order of this Court, assailing the said
action as giving raise to the cause of action, which in the considered view of this
Court has become a stale claim having been visited with delay and laches.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
21. It is a settled position of law that a stale claim cannot be revived by a
writ petition as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagar
Panchayat, Kymore -vs- Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine 1889.
22. It is trite law that in service matters, delay and laches cannot be easily
brushed aside, as any direction given would affect the rights of others,
particularly in matters relating to promotion and seniority. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in P.Sadasivam Swamy -vs- State of Tamil Nadu [supra] held as
under:-
“ it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for
the Court to refuse extraordinary powers under Article 226 in
the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for
relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and than
approach the court to put forward claims and try to settle
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
unsettled matters.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mudgal and Others -vs- R.P.Singh [Supra] had
referred to observations made by Constitutional Bench of that Court in Madam
Lawrence Cecil the D'Souza -vs- Union of India (1975) (Suppl) SLR 409, that
'raking up old matters, like seniority after a long time is likely to result in
administrative complications and difficulties. It would therefore appear to be in
the interest of the smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should
be given quietus after a lapse of some time'. In a catena of Judgments, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts had observed that if the
claim involved in the issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting
others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches / limitation will
be applied.
23. The Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
& Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC
108 dealt with the aspect of delay and laches, and observed as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
“ 16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be
lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the
explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court
should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and
equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to
protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep
itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his
own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal
obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should
be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of
equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be
fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only
invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the
court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a
litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely,
“procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law
does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does
bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.”
24. The Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
Thangappan and another reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 observed as under:
“ 6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be
borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In
an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its
extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission
on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in
conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances,
causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where
fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the
discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v.
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185 :
AIR 1970 SC 769] . Of course, the discretion has to be
exercised judicially and reasonably.”
25. Further in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri
and others reported in (2015) 15 SCC 602, the Apex Court has held as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
“ 27. The grievance agitated by the respondent did not
deserve to be addressed on merits, for doctrine of delay and
laches had already visited his claim like the chill of death
which does not spare anyone even the one who fosters the idea
and nurtures the attitude that he can sleep to avoid death and
eventually proclaim “deo gratias”—“thanks to God”.”
26. The Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak
vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation reported in (2022) 18 SCC 144 while
following the ratio laid down in the case of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 case held as under:
“8. The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter
statutes of limitation, are considered to be statutes of repose
and statutes of peace, though some contrary opinions have
been expressed. The courts have expressed the view that the
law of limitation rests on the foundations of greater public
interest for three reasons, namely,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
(a) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice
in them;
(b) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disapprove
a stale claim; and
(c) that persons with good causes of action (who are able to
enforce them) should pursue them with reasonable diligence.
Equally, change in de facto position or character, creation of
third-party rights over a period of time, waiver, acquiescence,
and need to ensure certitude in dealings, are equitable public
policy considerations why period of limitation is prescribed by
law. Law of limitation does not apply to writ petitions, albeit
the discretion vested with a constitutional court is exercised
with caution as delay and laches principle is applied with the
aim to secure the quiet of the community, suppress fraud and
perjury, quicken diligence, and prevent oppression. Therefore,
some decisions and judgments do not look upon pleas of delay
and laches with favour, especially and rightly in cases where
the persons suffer from adeptness, or incapacity to approach
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
the courts for relief. However, other decisions, while accepting
the rules of limitation as well as delay and laches, have
observed that such rules are not meant to destroy the rights of
the parties but serve a larger public interest and are founded
on public policy. There must be a lifespan during which a
person must approach the court for their remedy. Otherwise,
there would be unending uncertainty as to the rights and
obligations of the parties.”
27. Keeping in view the law as declared by the Apex Court, if the case of
the petitioner is examined, it is clear that the petitioner having foregone her
promotion in the year 2008 is seeking for retrospective promotion after a decade
which cannot be permitted as the said claim suffers on account of delay and
laches.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
28. Further, as brought to the notice of this Court, the petitioner having
accepted her promotion as B.T. Assistant subsequently is prescribed from
pursuing her claim for retrospective promotion in the year 2008.
29.Thus, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition as filed is
devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
21.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yest/No
Speaking or Non-speaking order
Maya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
T.VINOD KUMAR, J.
Maya
To
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. By its Secretary
Adi-Dravida & Tribal Welfare Department
St. George Fort, Secretariat
Chennai-9.
2. The Director
Directorate of Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare
Chepalk, Chennai.
3. The District Adi-Dravida & Tribal Welfare Officer
Vellore District, Vellore.
4. The Special Tahsildar
Thirupathur, Vellore District.
5. S.Prabu, Second Grade-Headmaster, Adi Dravidar
Welfare Primary School, T.T.Mottoor, Vellore District.
Dated : 21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:13 pm )
