Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
K. Muthusamy – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Home (Police-V) Department – Respondent
ORDER :
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to call for the records from the second respondent vide letter C.No.D1/004125/2017 dated 11.10.2017, quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to give appointment of Sub-Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Uniform Services, in pursuant to the order made in WP No.23537 of 2005 dated 27.01.2016 passed by this Court.
2. The petitioner states that he is working as Special Sub Inspector in Tamil Nadu Police Department. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board invited applications from the eligible candidates for appoint to the post of Sub Inspector of Police Category-I under 20% quota from departmental candidates. The petitioner submitted his application and participated in the process of selection in Chennai Range in all the three stages, namely, physical efficiency test, written test and viva voce.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the similarly placed persons, whose cases were not considered for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and thereafter High Court and thereafter the Honourable Supreme Court. The Apex Court passed a
The principle of delay and latches in approaching the court for relief, and the impact of settled issues by the Honourable Supreme Court on subsequent petitions.
Delay in filing a writ petition after 22 years can bar the petitioner from relief, especially when the issues have been settled by the Supreme Court.
The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of FR 22-B, and the respondent authorities were directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioners by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B.
The decision highlights the importance of character and antecedent verification for uniformed services, the finality of the Selection Committee's decision, and the inability to claim retrospective se....
Delay and laches can bar a writ petition, and nonjoinder of necessary and proper parties can render a petition not maintainable.
Writ petitions are subject to implicit limitations; unreasonable delays can bar claims regardless of merit, and necessary parties must be included for maintainability.
The period of continuous officiation after appointment has to be taken into account for determining seniority, and where an appointment was made by way of a stopgap arrangement, the experience on suc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
