Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 51543
2025:MHC:436 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 12.02.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 19.02.2025 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED WP(MD)No.6979 of 2021 S.Mayalagu Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director of Collegiate Education, E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai – 6.
2. The Principal, V.S.S.Government Arts College, Poolankurichi, Tirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. Respondent(s)
Prayer:- This Writ Petition has been filed, under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st Respondent made in Na.Ka.No. 18396/B2/2019, dated 17.10.2019 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the Respondents to give notional promotion to the Petitioner as a Lab Assistant in the 2nd Respondent College on and from 09.07.2008, with all attended benefits.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.SuriyaNarayanan For Respondent(s) : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, Additional Government Pleader
The doctrine of laches bars claims with significant unexplained delay, emphasizing the necessity for timely action in administrative matters.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Request for notional promotion - Petitioner appointed initially as Sports Marker but not considered for Lab Assistant post due to a disciplinary punishment - Censure imposed later restored eligibility for promotion, yet claim dismissed for delay - Court upheld rejection citing lack of promptness as an issue. (Paras 1-25)
(B) Delay and laches in filing petition - The doctrine of laches applies when there is unexplained delay in seeking relief, thus undermining the claim if the delay is substantial and lacks satisfactory explanation. (Paras 11, 13, 25)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner sought notional promotion as Lab Assistant from 09.07.2008 despite being appointed on 01.06.2013 post disciplinary punishment. Subsequent representations were ignored, leading to the present Writ Petition filed post-retirement.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in the Petitioner’s claim for retrospective promotion due to significant unexplained delay and acceptance of appointment.
Issues: Whether the Petitioner was entitled to notional promotion retrospectively and the impact of the delay on the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the delay in claiming notional promotion was excessive and unsubstantiated, affirming that timely action is crucial in administrative claims.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER
1. This Writ Petition has been filed, under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India , to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st Respondent made in Na.Ka.No. 18396/B2/2019, dated 17.10.2019 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the Respondents to give notional promotion to the Petitioner as a Lab Assistant in the 2nd Respondent College on and from 09.07.2008, with all attended benefits.
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition and led to filing of this Writ Petition and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-
(a) The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Sports Marker in the 2nd Respondent College. Though, as per the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent, dated 27.10.1997, the post of Lab Assistant was to be filled in the ratio of 1:2, with one post filled through the direct recruitment and two posts through promotion, the Petitioner was not considered for the said post, since the Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, without cumulative effect from 10.11.2008, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner, under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In W.P(MD)No.5463 of 2008, filed by the Petitioner, seeking appointment to the post of Lab Assistant, this Court, by the order dated, 27.03.2013, directed the 2nd Respondent to consider and appoint the Petitioner as a Lab Assistant, if he was otherwise eligible on the ground that the punishment period ended on 10.11.2009 and a vacancy existed. Accordingly, the Petitioner was promoted as a Lab Assistant, by the proceedings, dated 27.05.2013.
(b) In the mean time, during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the 1st Respondent by the proceedings, dated 10.05.2010, reduced the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect to a Censure, which was not brought to the notice of this Court by the Respondents in the said Writ proceedings. Since the Censure was not a bar to get promotion, the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.05.2013, requesting the Respondents to promote him with effect from 09.07.2008, on which date, two, out of three posts, were filled up, viz. one through the direct recruitment and the other by promoting a Record Clerk in the 2nd Respondent's College. His further representations, seeking notional promotion, were dismissed. On 06.05.2019, the Petitioner submitted another representation. However, the 1st Respondent rejected the said representation, by the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.18396/B2/2019, dated 17.10.2019, without any valid reason, but citing paragraph 4 of the order made in W.P(MD)No. 5463 of 2008. Thereafter, the Petitioner retired on 31.10.2019. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition has been filed, seeking the relief, as stated above.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent, it is averred as follows:-
(a) The Petitioner had passed SSLC. The Petitioner was temporarily appointed through the Employment Exchange, as a Marker in the 2nd Respondent College with effect from 19.01.1984. As per the G.O.Ms.No. 347, Higher Education (G-2) Department, dated 29.09.2006, the services of the Petitioner were regularised. As on 09.07.2008, there were three vacant posts of sanctioned Lab Assistant. The Petitioner had also made applications for promotion as a Lab Assistant on 28.09.2007 and 17.06.2008. The 2nd Respondent, by the proceedings dated, 21.11.2007 and 18.06.2008, stated that in view of the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal), pending against the Petitioner, his representation could not be considered at that time. The Petitioner was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.
(b) The Petitioner had filed WP(MD)No.5463 of 2008 to
