LexP.S. SADASIVASWAMY versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
356 P.S. SADASTVASWAMY 1'. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU October 7, 1974 [K. K. MATHEW AND A. ALAGIRlSWAMI, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226-Laches and stale claims as grounds for refusal to exercise powers unier. A person aggrieved by an order promoting a junior over his head should ap- proach the court within six months, or a.t the most, within a year after such promo- tion, though there is no period of limitation for the exercise of powers under Art. 226. Except in exceptional cases, it would be n sound ~nd wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under the article in the case of persons who do not approach expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. [357-G 358-A]. In the present case, the appellant did not challenge promotions of his juniors over his head as Divisional Engineers and Superientending Engineers. But 14 years after the first promotion of a junior over him in 1957, he filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the promotion. It is difficult for the Government to consider now whether any relaxation of the rules should · have been made in the appellant's favour in the year 1957. The conditions that were prevalent in 1957 cannot be reproduced now. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the court and impedes its working in consider- mg legitimate grievances and the High Court rightly dismissed the petition. [357 C-F; 358 A-BJ. C1v1L APPELLATE JURiSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1131 of 1974 Anpeal by Spedal Leave from the Judgment & Order dated 5th February 1974 of the Madras High Court in W. Appeal No. '67/1974. Y. S. ClzitcJe, K. Alairumc.lai, R. N. Nath and V. Marakrishnt.n, for the appelhnt. S. Govind Swaminathan, Adi,ocate General, for the Stare 1>f Tamil Nadu, A. V. Rangam and A. Subha.1hi'1i, for respondent No. I. A. T. M. Samp:;th, for respondent No. 2. The Judgmel\t of the Court was delivered by ALA.GIRt~WAMI. J. The appellant entered service as a Junior En- gineer 'in the Highways Department of the then Province of Mat.ras on 21-8-1946. He was promoted as an Assistant Engineer on 12-3-1951. In 1955 he was selected by the State Public Service Commission as an Assistaht Engineer along with res,.ondents 2 to 4 and was placed above them in rank. In 1957 the 2nd respondent was promoted as Divi- sion-ii Engineer. Thereupon the appellant made a representation to the Gw~rnment. He made another representation in the same year. He m1de two farther representations in the year 1968 to consider his case for pr,1mntion as Superintending Engineer along with his juniors. Respmdents 2 to 4 were again promoted as Superintending En~ineers over the head of the appellant. In 1970 the ~th mpondent who was junbr to the ap;iellant as Assistant Engineer and Divisional Engineer A B c D F G H A B c D E F G H P. s. SADA SIVASWAMY v. TAMIL NADU (Alagiriswami, 1.) 357 was promoted Superintending Engineer over the head of the appel- lant. The appellant himself was promoted as Superintending Engi- neer on 23-1-197 J, He, therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madras. That petition was dismissed as also the appeal against the dismissal. The main grievance of the appellant is that the 2nd respondent who wa~ junior to him as Assistant Engineer was promoted as Divisional Engineer in 1957 b) relaxing the relevant rules regarding the length of service ne,essary for promotion as Divisional Engineer and that his claim for a similar relaxation was not considered at that time. 111e learned Judge of the Madras High Court who heard the writ petition was of the view that the relaxation of the rules in favour of the 2nd res- pondent without considering the appellant's case was arbitrary. In view of the ~tatement on behalf of the Government that such relaxation was given only in the case of overseas scholars, which statement was not ·controverted, it is not possible to agree with the view of the learned Judge. Be that as it may, if the appellant was aggrieved b) it.he should have approathed the Court even in the year 1957 after the two re- presentations made b) him had failed to produce an) result. One ca1mot sle'ep over .the matter and come to the Court questioning that relaxation in the year 1971. There is the. frrther fact that even after · respondent~ 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.