Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India challenging an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 10 May 1996 in OA No.492/94 and batch. The petitioners, Head Constables in the Maharashtra Subordinate Police Service, sought consideration for promotion as Sub-Inspectors through a regularisation process. Earlier, the High Court by order dated 30 April 1991 had permitted the petitioners to participate in the regularisation process for candidates who appeared in 1991, subject to their filing willingness within two months from the date of that order. The High Court directed that marks secured in the written examinations conducted in 1984-85 would be restored and interview marks would be taken into account, and if found eligible on merit, they would be placed in the merit list and considered according to rules. The petitioners admittedly did not file willingness within the two-month period. They instead filed a special leave petition against the High Court order, which the Supreme Court dismissed. Later, they filed undertakings within two months after the dismissal, but the Government did not accept their applications. Meanwhile, another batch of candidates approached the Tribunal and obtained a similar order, and the Government issued a circular permitting fresh interviews with three months' time. The petitioners contended that the circular's three-month period entitled them to the same benefit, and that since the Director General of Police had not conducted examinations for 1991, they could not be denied the right to appear for viva voce as directed by the Division Bench. The State opposed the claim, arguing that the petitioners had defaulted by not complying with the court-fixed deadline. The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners' contentions. It reasoned that when the High Court prescribed a two-month time limit and the petitioners approached the Supreme Court against that direction, they should have sought extension of time from the High Court or the Supreme Court for giving the written undertaking. They did not seek such extension. Therefore, the Government was right in not considering their claims after the writ petition. The Court held that the mere fact that another batch of people had approached the Tribunal and obtained similar orders, leading to a circular, did not furnish any further cause of action to the petitioners. The petitioners' own inaction constituted default and they had to face the consequences. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion/Regularisation - Compliance with Court-Prescribed Deadlines - No Specific Act Cited; Service Law Principles - The High Court directed that Head Constables could participate in regularisation process for promotion as Sub-Inspectors if they filed willingness within two months, but petitioners did not comply and instead filed special leave petition which was dismissed, without seeking extension of time from either High Court or Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Government was right in not considering their claims after the writ petition, and their own inaction committed default and they must face consequences (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Benefit of Circulars/Subsequent Orders - Entitlement Based on Another Batch's Relief - No Specific Act Cited; Service Law Principles - Petitioners contended that a government circular granting three months' time for interview to another batch entitled them to similar benefit; the Supreme Court rejected this, holding that a circular benefiting others due to different orders does not furnish a fresh cause of action to defaulters who failed to seek extension of the original two-month deadline (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether petitioners, who failed to comply with High Court's two-month deadline for filing willingness, can claim benefit of a subsequent government circular granting three months to another batch; Whether non-conduct of 1991 examinations by Director General of Police entitled petitioners to appear for viva voce despite non-compliance with deadline
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that the Government was right in not considering the petitioners' claims after they failed to file willingness within the prescribed two months and did not seek extension of time from the High Court or the Supreme Court. The mere fact that another batch obtained similar relief through Tribunal order and a circular did not furnish a fresh cause of action to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Court-prescribed deadlines must be strictly complied with
- Failure to seek extension of time from the court that fixed the deadline forfeits claim
- Subsequent circulars granting fresh opportunity to other similarly situated persons do not create a cause of action for those who defaulted earlier
- A party cannot rely on non-compliance of directions by authorities when the party itself failed to comply with precondition
