(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Judgment dated 09.01.2026 passed in WP No.30795 of 2025 on the file of this Court.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. This intra-court appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 09.01.2026 passed in WP No.30795 of 2025, whereby the challenge made by the appellant/writ petitioner to G.O.R.S.No.53 dated 10.11.1994 came to be rejected.

2. It is the grievance of the appellant that he had applied for the award of ‘Thanthai Periyar for Social Justice’ for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024, where he has been unsuccessful. It is stated by the appellant that respondents 4 to 6, in whose favour the award was granted for the respective years, are not eligible persons to receive this award. According to the appellant, respondents 4 to 6 have not done any work of social justice for which the award has been given to them.

3. The learned Single Judge, considering the claim observed that the challenge to the G.O. dated 10.11.1994 has been made after a huge delay and further, since already the awards have been issued in favour of respondents 4 to 6 for the year 2022, 2023 and 2024, the writ petitioner, at that point of time with huge delay and laches, cannot mount a challenge to the G.O. Further, the learned Single judge also noted that the appellant/writ petitioner was not able to make out any ground against the grant of award in favour of respondents 4 to 6 and thereby had dismissed the writ petitions. Challenging the said order, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner submitted that when the awards are to be given to eligible persons and the appellant had also applied, who has undertaken several works towards social justice, the official respondents have selected respondents 4 to 6 in a biased manner without any proper selection procedures and therefore, the awards granted to respondents 4 to 6 cannot be sustained. These awards are to be granted to the eligible applicants who have applied in the respective years. The learned counsel further submitted that since the G.O. dated 10.11.1994 is the basis for which the award was issued, the G.O. is put to challenge in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge had erroneously, without considering the issue on merits, dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of delay, which is not sustainable.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that a scheme has been framed pursuant to the G.O. issued in the year 1994 and consequent thereto, awardees are selected for every year and award has been distributed to eligible persons. Like in the same manner, for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024, respondents 4 to 6 were selected as eligible beneficiaries and the awards have been given to them and there is no merit in the claim made by the appellant/writ petitioner and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

7. The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 10.11.1994. The said G.O. stipulated that an award in the name of ‘Thanthai Periyar Award for Social Justice’ would be given to honour those who have worked for promoting social justice and the award consisted of five sovereign gold medal and a shield, which will be presented to the persons selected by the Chief Minister annually from the year 1995 onwards. The G.O. dated 10.11.1994 reads as under:

                     GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

                     ABSTRACT

                     Award: The Thanthai Periyar Award for Social Justice – Order Issued.

                     BACKWARD CLASSES AND MOST BACKWARD CLASSES

                     G.O.R.S.No.53 Dated: 10.11.1994

                     Iyapasi 25, Pava, Thiruvalluvar Andu 2025.

                     ORDER

                     The Honourable Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Announced the Institution of THE THANTHAI PERIYAR AWARD FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE – on 08.09.1994 while participating in a function at the Madras University Centenary Auditorium organized by the Social Justice protection Forum of Madras to honour those who have toiled for Social Justice.

                     2.The Government of Tamilnadu are pleased to institute the THANTHAI PERIYAR AWARD FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE to honour those who have worked for promoting social justice. The Award consisting of a five sovereign Gold medal and a shield will be presented to the persons selected by the Chief Minister annually from the year 1995 onwards.

                     3. The expenditure shall be debited to a new head of account “2335. Social Security and Welfare -60. Other social security and welfare programmes 100. Other expenditure-Ion Plan – The Thanthai periyar Award for Social Justice Prize and Award (D.P.Code 2235 60 AK 5902).

                     4. The Director of Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare is requested to act as the estimating central and reconciling authority of the above scheme.

                     5. This order issued with the concurrence of Department vide its G.O.No.99213/Fin.

                     (By order of the Director)

Subsequently, by G.O. No.45, dated 16.12.1998, the benefits were increased and the conditions remained the same.

8. From a perusal of the scheme issued in the aforesaid G.O., it is clear that the awards are to be presented to the persons who have worked for promoting social justice. No further rules or guidelines have been issued fixing any criteria or mode of selection and in the absence of any such rules or guidelines, for implementation of the scheme, it was the said G.O. which stipulates that the award is to be granted to the persons who have worked for promoting social justice.

9. In pursuant to the scheme, every year beneficiaries were selected and awards have been issued to the eligible beneficiaries from the year 1995 onwards. The writ petitioner/appellant is only aggrieved in respect of the beneficiaries selected for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024, where, according to him, they are not eligible beneficiaries. We are not able to appreciate the challenge made in view of the fact that in the absence of any rules or regulations framed in the manner of selecting the beneficiaries and when only by way of the G.O. the persons who have worked for social justice would be entitled for the award, it will not be open for the appellant to make a claim or challenge on the ground that respondents 4 to 6 are not eligible beneficiaries, as it is nowhere stated or alleged that they have not worked towards promotion of social justice.

10. It is also relevant to note that the appellant had earlier come up with similar relief, which resulted in the judgment dated 12.01.2024 passed by this Court in WA No.188 of 2024. In that case, the appellant had also made a similar claim challenging the award granted in favour of the 4th respondent for the year 2022. This Court, after considering the submissions, observed that even though the appellant might have done a good work, when there is no rule or regulation in respect of issuing the award to the beneficiaries, the challenge made by the appellant would not be sustained. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said judgment reads as under:

                     “5. The appellant may have done good work. In a writ appeal, we are not going to enter into the arena of the amount of work done by each applicant.

                     6. No rules or regulations are placed on record to suggest that while giving the award the rules or regulations and/or the procedure has not been followed.

                     7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are no guidelines laid down for giving the said award. We are in an appeal against the order passed in a writ petition, wherein such a prayer was not made. The said aspect can be considered in an appropriate petition.”

11. When such an order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in respect of the award granted in favour of 4th respondent for the year 2022, now the appellant has come up with the present writ petition challenging the very same award granted to the same fourth respondent for the same year, 2022 and for the subsequent years 2023 and 2024 as well. When already this issue was considered and rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the present writ petition filed seeking for a similar relief for the very same year in respect of the 4th respondent is not sustainable.

12. It is also to be noted that now the challenge is made to the G.O. No.53 dated 10.11.1994. The appellant himself had applied under the very same G.O. seeking to confer the benefits. When the appellant has thought it fit that he is an eligible beneficiary and has applied under the scheme in pursuance of the very same G.O., now he having failed from being selected, cannot now turn around and seek to challenge the very G.O. itself under which he made an application to get selected.

In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the writ appeal and there is no error or infirmity in the order passed in the writ petition warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.