P.S. Kumaresan vs The Director General of Police and The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board

M. Jaichandren, J.—The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had submitted that the order of the Division Bench of this

Court, dated 25.2.2005, made in W.P. No. 17639 of 2001 etc. (batch), cannot be made applicable to the present case, especially, with regard to

the aspect of limitation. The said decision would be applicable only in respect of those, who had approached the concerned Department, the

Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal or the High Court for the first time, after more than a year from the date of the order of the Tribunal i.e.

11.7.2002. However, in the present case the Petitioner had approached the authorities concerned, as early as, on 31.10.2000 and therefore, it

cannot be said that the writ petition is belated in nature. Further, the Petitioner had been submitting a number of representations to the authorities

concerned to consider him for being appointed, as a Sub Inspector of Police, from the year 1997-1998, with all consequential and service

benefits.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, it has been stated that the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition after a lapse of

nearly seven years. He had failed to agitate his case at the earliest point of time before a judicial forum. In the order of this Court, dated

25.2.2005, made in W.P.No. 17639 of 2001 etc. (batch), it has been stated that even if the selection was found to be bad on the ground of

violation of a mandatory provision, the concerned applicant cannot be granted the relief, straightaway, as it would depend on whether such an

applicant had approached the judicial forum at the earliest point of time.

It had also been stated that the Petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No. 9816 of 2005, praying that the Respondents

therein should be directed to appoint him as a Sub Inspector of Police. However, this Court, by its order, dated 26.2.2007, had directed the first

Respondent in the said writ petition to consider the representations of the Petitioner and to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance

with law. The representations of the Petitioner, dated 31.10.2000 and 3.3.3005, had been considered and rejected by the Director General of

Police, Tamilnadu, on 28.4.2007, as per the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.2.2005, made in W.P.No. 17639 of 2001 etc.

(batch). As such, the present writ petition is devoid of merits.

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents

and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as the Respondents and in view of the

decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.2.2005, made in W.P.No. 17639 of 2001 etc. (batch), and in view of the earlier orders

passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including W.P. Nos. 2711, 30774 to 30776, 11850, 13932, 14954, 14955, 16482 to 16487

of 2005 and in other similar Writ Petitions, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner has not been in a position to show that the present writ petition is, substantially, different from the other writ petitions, which had

been dismissed by this Court, on the ground of laches. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the Petitioner, for this Court to come to a different

conclusion. The earlier writ petition filed by the writ Petitioner in W.P.No. 9816 of 2005, had been disposed of by this Court, by an order, dated

26.2.2007, directing the first Respondent therein to consider the representations of the Petitioner, dated 31.10.2000 and 3.3.2005. On

considering the said representations, as directed by this Court, the first Respondent had rejected the claims made by the Petitioner, on 28.4.2007,

based on the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.2.2005, made in W.P.No. 17639 of 2001 etc. (batch). As such, the writ

petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No. costs.