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.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sub Inspector of Police based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.21828 of 2006 etc., in Civil Appeal No.7667 of 2014 etc., dated 07.08.2014 with all consequential service and monetary benefits in the interest of justice within the time frame fixed by this Court.)

1. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sub Inspector of Police based on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.21828 of 2006 etc., in Civil Appeal No.7667 of 2014 etc., dated 07.08.2014 with all consequential service and monetary benefits in the interest of justice, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner states that his is working as Head Constable 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 an order directing the Department to extend the benefits granted by the High Court to all the similarly placed persons, if they are otherwise eligible and qualified based on the marks secured by them in the selection process. The Apex Court further held that the benefits granted to the similarly placed persons need not be restricted to the persons, who approached the Court, but it is to be extended to the persons, who have not approached the Court, but eligible for selection and appointment.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents contended that the claim of all those persons was considered and in some cases, the Department rejected the claim of those persons and second round of litigations were filed by them before the High Court and the claim of those persons were directed to be considered and they were appointed accordingly.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the persons, who were all along waiting till the disposal of all these litigations, filed fresh writ petitions in the year 2014-2015. In other words, third batch of writ petitions was filed belatedly after the disposal of cases by the Honourable Supreme Court. All such cases were tagged together and a common Judgment was passed by this Court by elaborately considering the issues on 27.01.2016. This Court has dealt with Category-III, which all are falling under the category of delay and latches. In this regard, this Court observed as follows:

“Issue No.III

39. In Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another [(2000) 6 SCC 359] it has been held that if the judgment of the High Court has come up to the Supreme Court by way of a special leave, and special leave is granted and the appeal is disposed of with or without reasons, by affirmative or otherwise, the judgment of the High Court merges with that of the Supreme Court. In that event, it is not permissible to move the High Court by review because the judgment of 63 the High Court has merged with the judgment of the Supreme Court. It has been further held that dismissal of SLP by the words “dismissed on merits” would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court; the dismissal is not of the appeal but of the special leave petition and even if the mer