The main legal point established in the judgment is that belated representations cannot revive a stale cause of action, and delay and laches will disentitle the petitioners to any relief in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The petitioners are all Teachers. Some of them have got retired 1 to 9 years back. The present prayer of the petitioners was to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the G.O.Ms.No.234 School Education (G2) Department dated 10.9.2009 in so far as the petitioners are concerned and accordingly award selection/special grade scale of pay in the post of Elementary School Headmaster by taking count of their lower cadre Secondary Grade Assistant service as has been given to 61 similarly placed persons .

2. The cause of action for the petitioners to approach this Court as stated in the affidavits is that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.234, School Education Department dated 10.9.2009, wherein and by which 63 Teachers were given similar benefit. Therefore, the petitioners should also be given such benefits. Nowhere in the affidavit, the petitioners have stated as to why they never approached the court or the Tribunal at an earlier point of time with reference to their service grievance, if at all there was any grievance. They cannot place their right on the basis of the so-called orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.234, School Education Department dated 10.9.2009.

3. The circumstances under which the said Government Order came to be passed is set out in the G.O. The G.O itself very categorically states that the benefit will only be available to 63 Teachers, who have filed cases before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal came to be challenged before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Petition. Therefore, the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal became final. Merely because the Government had chosen to implement certain orders of the Tribunal or court, that by itself will not give a cause of action to the petitioners to move the Court that too after three decades regarding their so-called service grievance.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr.Santosh Kumari vs. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 1 SCC 269. Emphasis was placed on paragraph 8 of the order. That was a case relating to admission to a Medical College. The Supreme Court held that once the law is laid down, then the persons who came to court alone cannot be granted the relief as that will cause injustice to more deserving candidates not being admitted. It is not clear as to how the said judgment has any application to the facts of the present case.

5. On the contrary, the Supreme Court in Col.B.J.Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India and others reported in 2006 (11) SCC 709 has held that merely because the Government had chosen to implement a wrong order which became final, that by itself will not give any cause of action to the other persons without deciding the issue on merit. It is therefore necessary to extract para 26 of the judgment and it reads as follows:

" A particular judgment of the High Court may not be challenged by the State where the financial repercussions are negligible or where the appeal is barred by limitation. It may also not be challenged due to negligence or oversight of the dealing officers or on account of wrong legal advice, or on account of the non-comprehension of the seriousness or magnitude of the issue involved. However, when similar matters subsequently crop up and the magnitude of the financial implications is realised, the State is not prevented or barred from challenging the subsequent decisions or resisting subsequent writ petitions, even though judgment in a case involving similar issue was allowed to reach finality in the case of others. Of course, the position would be viewed differently, if petitioners plead and prove that the State had adopted a “pick-and-choose” method only to exclude petitioners on account of mala fides or ulterior motives. Be that as it may. On the facts and circumstances, neither the principle of res judi