Promotion challenges based on delayed claims are subject to dismissal due to delay and laches, reinforcing the principle that timely objections are crucial in promotion-related disputes.

ORDER :

T. Vinod Kumar, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent and perused the record.

2. The petitioners by the present writ petition have assailed the indifference approach of the respondents No.2 to 4 in the matter of selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2004, despite admitting to in unequivocal terms the irregularities committed in the selection of the 5^th respondent to the aforesaid vacancy and refusing to cancel the selection of the 5^th respondent or to order fresh selection and instead, justifying the selection of the 5^th respondent with vague reason.

3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that they are the selected Grade-II constables of 1988 batch attached to the Armed Reserve Police Force; that they were promoted as Grade –I Police Constables in the year 1991 and posted in same Force; that they were further promoted as per order of Seniority to Head Constable in the year 1994 -1995; and that they became eligible for further promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police on completion of 2 years of service as Head Constable.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that though they have been permitted to appear for Selection Board, in the year 2000 to undergo the selection process, they were not selected to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on the ground that they have not secured the required marks and also on the ground of seniority when compared to the other selectees.

5. The petitioners further contend that pursuant to memorandum dated 01.05.2004, “C” list of Head Constables (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 2003 was issued by the first respondent to fill up 94 vacancies in 14 Ranges including Coimbatore Range; that the disputed selection was made by the respondents No.2 and 3 to fill up one post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the Coimbatore Range consisting of 3 Districts; that the 1^st petitioner had the merit and ability which are the basic and fundamental yardstick for the selection and seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal, the first respondent vide notification/memorandum dated 01.05.2004 had prescribed the relevant criteria for selection/consideration based on the marks to be secured whereunder marks were required to be awarded under six(6) heads in all aggregating to 100 marks with highest marks being for written test and Annual Confidential Report; that the Promotion Board contrary to the criteria laid down for the award of marks on six (6) parameters by floating all norms and procedures and by manipulating records, awarded extra marks to the 6^th respondent than the marks/criteria prescribed under notification/memorandum dated 01.05.2004; that the foul play as resorted to by the respondents is evident from the 6^th respondent Annual Confidential Report; and that the respondents only to favour 5^th respondent has resorted to the aforesaid action, thereby, denying the promotion to the first petitioner who was otherwise entitled to be considered and granted promotion.

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 6^th respondent Annual Confidential Report has been manipulated by altering the actual date of promotion; that the 6^th respondent taking advantage of his duties as a Writer attached to Deputy Superintendent of Police (Station House Officer, Armed Reserve) had managed to secure ‘3 outstanding entries’ from 01.04.199