(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to pass orders on the petitioner’s appeal dated 08.09.2017 ordering for the cancellation of the entire selection processes inclusive of the selection of the 5th respondent as Sub-Inspector of Police despite having lesser marks than the 1st petitioner and appoint/promote the 1st petitioner, now having placement at No.2, the genuine incumbent to occupy No.1 position as Sub-Inspector of Police with retrospective effect from 13.08.2004, apart from referring the ‘ACR’-Annual Confidential Reports belong to the 5th respondent for the periods from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.2004 and more particularly for the periods from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000, 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001, to 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 to the Forensic Science Department to compare the entries made therein with the signatory of the said papers for further course of action.)

1. 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 5th 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 5th respondent to the aforesaid vacancy and refusing to cancel the selection of the 5th respondent or to order fresh selection and instead, justifying the selection of the 5th 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 1st 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 6th 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 6th respondent Annual Confidential Report; and that the respondents only to favour 5th 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 6th respondent Annual Confidential Report has been manipulated by altering the actual date of promotion; that the 6th 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 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998, 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999 and 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000; and that on account of the aforesaid alteration, the 6th respondent got recorded his performance as “outstanding”.

7. The petitioners further contend that while the 6th respondent secured only 64 rewards; that as per Clause 19 of Memorandum dated 01.05.2004, for Rewards secured upto 100 - 5 marks are to awarded, while Rewards above 100 - 10 marks are eligible; and that the respondents however awarded more marks to the 5th respondent than his eligibility and placed him at Sl.No.1 in the selection list, due to which, the unofficial respondent was promoted as ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ in the sole vacancy caused in the Coimbatore Range in a manner unknown to law and also by taking law into their own hands.

8. It is the further case of the petitioners that though they submitted representations, the said representations for obvious reasons are not considered put in cold storage without justification in any manner whatsoever; and that the subsequent representation dated 15.10.2014 only has been considered by the second respondent; that the second respondent vide proceedings dated 12.11.2016 and the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings dated 20.05.2016 have admitted in unequivocal terms of certain irregularities committed in the Annual Confidential Report preparation in relation to awarding of ‘Grading’ entries of the 5th respondent; that the respondents having admitted the irregularities which are apparent in the selection process, did not initiate any action only to enable the 5th respondent to retain the sole vacancy of the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in Coimbatore Region.

9. The petitioners further contended that as the unofficial respondent was granted higher marks than the eligible marks, the same resulted in irregularities being committed particularly in relation to awarding Grading for Annual Confidential Report resulting in 5th respondent being provided with 0.15 extra marks once; thereby, depriving the chance of 1st petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.

10. The petitioners further contend that aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the first petitioner had preferred an appeal dated 08.09.2017 to the first respondent; and that the first respondent having received and acknowledging the receipt of the appeal, failed and neglected to initiate appropriate action against respondents 2 to 4, for restoring the petitioners seniority by upholding Rule of Law.

11. Contending as above, the petitioners seek for a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioners’ appeal dated 08.09.2017 by ordering cancellation of entire selection process including the selection of the 5th respondent as Sub-Inspector of Police, despite having lesser marks than the first petitioner, with a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the first petitioner to occupy the position as Sub-Inspector with retrospective effect.

12. Counter affidavit on behalf of the 3rd respondent is filed.

13. The respondents by the counter affidavit contended that the first respondent had issued circular dated 01.05.2004 to all the Officers of the State to constitute Range Promotion Board for selection of Head Constables (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2003 according to the available vacancy in the respective Ranges, prescribing norms for conducting Promotion Board and selection process and then to fill-up the vacancies; that the Range Promotion Board of Coimbatore Range consisting of the Superintendent of Police, Erode District as Chairman and Superintendents of Police, Coimbatore District and the Nilgiris District as its Members conducted Promotion Tests to the Head Constables of the Armed Reserve of the Range from 10.06.2004 to 30.06.2004 to fill-up the one vacancy of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) in the range as per the guidelines issued by the first respondent vide circular dated 01.05.2004.

14. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that in all 77 Head Constables of Armed Reserve were found eligible were being called to take written test, out of which, 56 Head Constables attended the promotion test and out of the aforesaid Head Constables who attended the test, 52 Head Constables including the writ petitioners and the 5th respondent scored 40% and above and qualified to attend next level i.e., drill and viva-voce test; and that all the selected 52 candidates attended for the drill and viva-voce test and their performance were assessed by the Range Promotion Board; that the Gradation list was prepared based on the total marks obtained by them and found that the 5th respondent who was then Head Constable had secured highest marks and included him in the promotion panel for the year 2003 according to the pre-existing seniority as per the Tamilnadu Police Sub-Ordinate Services Rules and promoted him as Sub-Inspector of Police in the existing one vacancy by the order of the second respondent issued in the year 2004.

15. The respondents further contended that aggrieved by the promotion of the 5th respondent as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve in the year 2004), the petitioners after a lapse of more than 10 years submitted a petition claiming that the 5th respondent is Junior to them and he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on account of the marks being wrongly awarded to him with regard to his performance record and requested respondents to promote the 1st petitioner from the date on which the 5th respondent was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police and then as Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve).

16. The respondents by the counter affidavit contended that since, the first petitioner after more than 10 years of the order passed by the respondents had claimed of the 5th respondent being awarded marks wrongly, the claim of the petitioners need no consideration and thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

17. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that the selection process to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police was conducted by the Board in June, 2004 and the results were published on 01.07.2004; and that if only the petitioners had any objection to the selection process, they ought to have reported the fact or claimed their rights in the year 2004 itself, instead the petitioners chose to submit petition/representation only on 15.10.2014 after a lapse of more than 10 years, during which time, the selected candidate was further promoted to the post of Inspector; and that the respondents conducted the Promotion Tests fairly by following the instructions of the first respondent as approved by the second respondent vide proceedings dated 01.05.2004; and thus, the claim of the petitioners that the 5th respondent was awarded marks erroneously on the basis of the said marks being promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) does not merit consideration.

18. Contending as above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the writ petition.

19. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

20. At the outset, it is to be noted that by the present writ petition , the petitioners particularly, the first petitioner is seeking to lay his claim to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, on promotion. Admittedly, the said vacancy arose in the year 2004 when the respondents 2 to 4 claim to have promoted the 5th respondent to the said post and the 5th respondent discharging his duties as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) since then. Though the petitioners claim that it is on account of awarding of wrong marks, such promotion having been granted to the 5th respondent, it is not shown to this Court as to why, it took a decade for the 1st petitioner to raise the said issue by submitting appeal/representations to the first respondent on 08.09.2017.

21. In the writ affidavit, there is no whisper as to why the petitioners did not approach the authorities concerned at the earliest point of time when the 5th respondent was granted promotion which according to the petitioners is on account of granting wrong marks nor it is shown to this Court of the petitioners approaching the authorities concerned bringing to their notice the said facts and the authorities not taking any action thereon. The petitioners by accepting the promotion granted to the 5th respondent to the post of Sub- Inspector (Armed Reserve) in the year 2004 and allowing the 5th respondent to discharge his duties in the said post over a decade have not only acquiesced themselves of the promotion granted to the 5th respondent but also waived their right. The petitioners thus having accepted the promotion granted to the 5th respondent in the year 2004 and the said respondent by discharging his duties in the said promoted post having become eligible for further promotion to the post of Inspector, seems to have caused a heart-burn to the petitioners for the 1st petitioner to approach official respondents by submitting a representation for the first time on 15.10.2014 without raising any objection or protest at the relevant point of time.

22. It is the settled position of law a challenge to a promotion should be claimed within a reasonable time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179 dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of promotion benefits, held in Paragraph Nos.23 to 26 and 28 as under:

                     “ 23. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam [(2007) 10 SCC 137 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 475] , this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: (SCC p. 145, para 16)

                     “16. … filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.”

                     24. There can be no cavil over the fact that the claim of promotion is based on the concept of equality and equitability, but the said relief has to be claimed within a reasonable time. The said principle has been stated in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K.

                     25. In NDMC v. Pan Singh [(2007) 9 SCC 278 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 398] the Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took note of the delay and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.

                     26. Presently, sitting in a time machine, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench decision in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [(1975) 1 SCC 152 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 22] , wherein it has been laid down that: (SCC p. 154, para 2)

                     “2. … A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it 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.”

                     .......28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court.”

23. In view of the aforesaid position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the facts of the present case as noted herein above, the petitioners for the first time raised their objection to the promotion granted to the 5th respondent only on 15.10.2014 i.e., after a decade of 5th respondent being selected and promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector from Head Constable. The petitioners thereafter again after a further lapse of 3 years filed an appeal/representation to the first respondent and thereafter, again after a lapse of 1 year 9 months filed the present writ petition. Thus, in all, the petitioners have allowed more than 15 years to pass by, from the date of 5th respondent being promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector and thereafter, being promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 2016.

24. Thus, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition as filed suffers from delay and laches and the petitioners cannot be allowed to give life to what had already became a stale and dead claim.

25. Accordingly the writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. No costs.