Case Note & Summary
The appellant, P.S. Sadasivaswamy, entered service as a Junior Engineer in the Highways Department of the then Province of Madras on 21-8-1946 and was promoted as 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, respondent 2, who was junior to the appellant as Assistant Engineer, was promoted as Divisional Engineer by relaxing the relevant rules regarding length of service. The appellant made representations to the Government in 1957 and again in 1968, seeking consideration of his case for promotion as Divisional Engineer and later as Superintending Engineer along with his juniors, but these representations did not yield relief. Respondents 2 to 4 were promoted as Superintending Engineers over the head of the appellant, and in 1970 respondent 5, who was junior to the appellant as Assistant Engineer and Divisional Engineer, was promoted as Superintending Engineer over the appellant. The appellant himself was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 23-1-1971, after which he filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court challenging the promotion of his juniors, particularly the relaxation granted to respondent 2 in 1957. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and the appeal against that dismissal. The appellant then filed Civil Appeal No. 1131 of 1974 by special leave before the Supreme Court. The main grievance was that respondent 2, junior to him, was promoted as Divisional Engineer in 1957 by relaxing rules, while his own claim for similar relaxation was not considered. The Government's statement that relaxation was given only in the case of overseas scholars was not controverted. The Supreme Court observed that if the appellant was aggrieved by the 1957 promotion, he should have approached the court even in that year after his representations failed. He did not challenge the promotions of respondents 3 and 4 as Divisional Engineers, nor the subsequent promotions of his juniors as Superintending Engineers. After fourteen years, he came to court due to the tempting prospect of Chief Engineership. The Court held that although there is no period of limitation for exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person aggrieved by an order promoting a junior over his head should approach the court within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for courts to refuse to exercise extraordinary powers under Article 226 in cases of persons who do not approach expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen, then approach the court to put forward stale claims and unsettle settled matters. The Court further stated that it is very difficult for the Government to consider now whether any relaxation of rules should have been made in the appellant's favour in 1957, as conditions prevalent then cannot be reproduced now. Since the Government had decided as a matter of policy not to relax rules except for overseas scholars, it would be wholly pointless to direct consideration of the appellant's case as if nothing had happened after 1957. The Court concluded that entertaining such petitions wastes time of the court, clogs its work, and impedes consideration of legitimate grievances. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
Headnote
A) Constitution of India - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The appellant challenged promotion of a junior after fourteen years, having not approached court on earlier occasions; the Supreme Court held that although there is no period of limitation for exercising powers under Article 226, a person aggrieved by promotion of a junior should approach the court within six months or at most a year; courts should refuse to exercise extraordinary powers in cases of stale claims and those who stand by and allow things to happen. Held that the High Court rightly dismissed the petition (Pages 357-358). B) Service Law - Promotion - Relaxation of Rules - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The appellant's claim for relaxation of rules for promotion was not considered; the Government stated relaxation was given only to overseas scholars, a policy decision; after long delay, conditions of 1957 cannot be reproduced; the court refused to direct reconsideration. Held that entertaining such petitions wastes court time and clogs work (Pages 357-358).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging promotion of a junior should be dismissed on ground of delay and laches despite absence of a prescribed period of limitation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs. The Court held that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's writ petition and writ appeal on the ground of delay and laches. A person aggrieved by an order promoting a junior over his head should approach the court within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. Courts should refuse to exercise extraordinary powers under Article 226 in cases of persons who do not approach expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen, then approach the court to put forward stale claims and unsettle settled matters.
Law Points
- Article 226 has no limitation period
- delay and laches bar relief
- aggrieved person must approach within six months to one year for promotion challenge
- courts refuse stale claims
- policy decision on relaxation not interfered
- extraordinary powers discretionary
