The court held that delay in filing a writ petition does not bar relief if the cause of action arises from new information, such as a report indicating errors in examination answers.

JUDGMENT :

C. SARAVANAN, J.

This Intra Court Appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.11846 of 2021.

2. The Appellant/Writ Petitioner had preferred the aforesaid Writ Petition W.P.No.11846 of 2021 for the following relief:-

“For issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Respondent in its Sub-Inspector of Police – 2019 Provisional Selection List of Department Candidates for Character and Antecedents Verification & Medical Examination – 2019 dated Nil published through Online dated 15.04.2021 of the respondent and to quash the same as being illegal and unsustainable in law and for a consequential direction to award one mark (0.5 + 0.5 marks) to the petitioner for Question No.23 & 53, B-Series Question type, department candidate based on the One Man Committee report dated 22.01.2021 and order of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.197 of 2021 dated 16.02.2021 and include the petitioner name in the final Sub-Inspector of Police-2019 Provisional selection list of department candidates for character and antecedents verification & Medical Examination 2019 and pass such and further orders which may deem fit and proper and thus render justice”.

3. By the impugned order dated 05.04.2022, the Writ Court dismissed the W.P.No.11846 of 2021 filed by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner with the following observation:

“8. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has not approached this Court immediately after the key answer was published and has not raised objections before the respondent. Now, the petitioner has challenged the key answer and is seeking relief on the ground that similarly placed candidates have approached this Court and obtained favourable orders. The petitioner has been a fence sitter and has watched the proceedings. After the revised rank list was published, she has belatedly approached this Court.

9. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India and others vs. Sandeep Kumar Swaroop and others ( Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9413 of 2016 dated 01.09.2017 ) has held that delay and laches as well as acquiescence can be a ground to deny benefit to fence sitters. Those who do not approach the Court in a timely and prompt manner can be denied “equal treatment”.

10. In the light of the aforesaid decision and considering the statement made in the counter affidavit, the petitioner is not entitled for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant writ petition.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs”

4. The brief facts of the case is that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner joined the Respondent Board as a 'Grade II Women Police Constable' in the Armed Reserve (AR) category in the year 2013 on 18.02.2013.

5. During the year 2019, the Respondent Board had published a Recruitment Notification No.2 of 2019 dated 08.03.2019 for selection of candidates to the post of 'Sub-Inspector of Police' for 2019 batch. In the aforesaid Recruitment Notification, the Respondent Board called for recruitment from three categories to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police viz., 660 posts in 'Taluk', 276 posts in 'Armed Reserve (AR)' and 33 posts in 'Tamil Nadu Special Police'.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid Recruitment Notification, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner who belongs to the 'BC Community' and from the Armed Reserve (AR) category had applied to the post of 'Sub-Inspector of Police' on 10.04.2019 under departmental candidates quota. The 'Written Examination' to the post of 'Sub-Inspector of Police' for 2019 batch for departmental candidates was held on 13.01.2020, in which, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner had scored 63 marks. The Petitioner was subsequently called for the 'Endurance Test'.

7. Pursuant to the 'Endurance Test', the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was also called for Viva-Voce. The Appellant/Writ Petitioner had reportedly scored 8 marks. Thus, Appellant/Writ Petit