http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: P.S. SADASIVASWAMY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/10/1974

BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN

CITATION:  1974 AIR 2271            1975 SCR  (2) 356  1975 SCC  (1) 152

ACT: Constitution  of  India,  1950, Art.  226-Laches  and  stale claims as grounds for refusal to exercise powers under.

HEADNOTE: A  person aggrieved by an order promoting a junior over  his head should approach the court within six months, or at  the most, within a year after such promotion, though there is no period  of  limitation  for the  exercise  of  powers  under Art.226   Except  in exceptional cases, it would be a  sound and 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 considering legitimate grievances and the High Court rightly dismissed the petition. 1357 C-F; 358 A-B].

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1131 of 1974 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated  5th February,  1974  of the Madras High Court in W.  Appeal  No. 67/1974. Y.   S.   Chitale,  K.  Alagumalai,  R.  N.  Nath   and   V. Mayakrishnan,for the appellant. S.   Govind Swaminathan, Advocate General, for the State  of Tamil Nadu,    A.   V.   Rangam  and  A.   Subhashini,   for respondent No. 1.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

A.   T. M. Samoath, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI,  J. The appellant entered service as a  Junior Engineer in the Highways Department of the then Province  of Madras  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 Assistant  Engineer  along with  respondents 2 to 4 and was Placed above them in  rank. In  1957  the  2nd respondent  was  promoted  as  Divisional Engineer.  Thereupon the appellant made a representation  to the Government.  He made another representation in the  same year.  He made two further representations in the year  1968 to  consider  his  case  for  promotion  as   Superintending Engineer  along with his juniors.  Respondents 2 to  4  were again promoted as Superintending Engineers over the head  of the appellant.  In 1970 the 5th respondent who was junior to the appellant as Assistant Engineer and Divisional Engineer 357 was  promoted Superintending Engineer over the head  of  the appellant.    The   appellant  himself   was   promoted   as Superintending Engineer on 23-1-1971, 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 was junior to him as Assistant Engineer  was promoted  as  Divisional Engineer in 1957  by  relaxing  the relevant rules regarding the length of service necessary for promotion  as Divisional Engineer and that his claim  for  a similar  relaxation  was not considered at that  time.   The 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  respondent  without  considering   the appellant’s case was arbitrary.  In view of the statement 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 by it he should have approached the Court even  in the year 1957 after the two representations made by him  had failed  to  produce any result.  One cannot sleep  over  the matter and come to the Court questioning that relaxation  in the  year 1971.  There is the further fact that  even  after respondents  3 and 4 were promoted as  Divisional  Engineers over the head of the appellant he did not come to the  Court questioning  it.  There was a third opportunity for  him  to have  come to the Court when respondents 2 to 4  were  again promoted  as Superintending Engineers over the head  of  the appellant.   After  fourteen  long  years  because  of   the tempting  prospect of the Chief Engineership he has come  to the  Court.   In effect he wants to unscramble  a  scrambled egg.   It is very difficult for the Government  to  consider whether any relaxation of the rules should have been made in favour  of the appellant in the year 1957.   The  conditions that  were prevalent in 1957 cannot be reproduced  now.   In any  case  as  the Government had decided  as  a  matter  of policy, as they were entitled to do, not to relax the  rules in  favour of any except overseas scholars t will be  wholly pointless to direct them to consider the appellants’ case as if  nothing had happened after 1957.  Not only respondent  2 but  also  respondents  3 and 4  who  were  the  appellant’s juniors  became Divisional Engineers in 1957  apparently  on the  ground that their merits deserved their promotion  over the head of the appellant.  He did not question it.  Nor did he  question the promotion of his juniors as  Superintending

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Engineers over his head.  He could have come to the Court on every  one of these three occasions.  A person aggrieved  by an order of promoting a junior over his bead should approach the  Court at least within six months or at the most a  year of  such promotion.  It is not that ’here 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 extra-ordinary 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 for- 358 ward  stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters-  The petitioner’s petition should, therefore have been  dismissed in  limine.  Entertaining such petitions is a waste of  time of  the court.  It clogs the work of the Court  and  impedes the  work of the court in considering legitimate  grievances as  also its normal work.  We consider that the  High  court was right in dismissing the appellant’s petition as well  as the appeal. This appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. V.P.S. 35 9