Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ginu Mohan C B, participated in a recruitment process initiated by the V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in 2009. He secured third position and was not selected. Over a decade later, in 2019, he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the Chairman and Chief Vigilance Officer of the Port Trust to consider his representation dated 25.02.2019, to conduct an enquiry against the third respondent (P.Arul Selva Nathan) for allegedly producing a fake work experience certificate, and to consider the petitioner for the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner contended that the third respondent had obtained appointment by undue influence and fake documents, and that he, standing third, should be considered. The respondents opposed the petition, stating that a complaint had been received from an advocate, E.Shivakumar, in October 2019, and that the Central Vigilance Commission had forwarded it. A charge memo was issued against the third respondent and another person on 09.10.2024, and an enquiry officer was appointed. The recruitment process had been completed in 2009, and the petitioner approached the court after an inordinate delay of over 10 years, rendering the prayer for consideration to the post unsustainable. The court, after considering the rival submissions and the counter affidavit, noted that action had already been initiated, and thus no direction was necessary regarding the enquiry. As for the claim to be considered for appointment, the court held that the inordinate delay was fatal to the relief. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - No direction needed when authority already acting - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioner sought mandamus to consider representation for enquiry into fake certificates. Court noted that a charge memo dated 09.10.2024 had been issued and enquiry was ongoing. Held that since appropriate action already initiated, no further direction required. (Paras 5-6, 8)
B) Administrative Law - Delay and Laches - Inordinate delay defeats mandamus for appointment - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioner sought to be considered for the post of Junior Engineer after more than 10 years from recruitment process completion in 2009. Held that the relief is unsustainable due to delay. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to consider a representation for enquiry and to consider for the post of Junior Engineer when the recruitment process was completed 10 years ago and the authority has already initiated action against the alleged wrongdoer
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Delay defeats relief of mandamus for consideration to post after recruitment process completed long ago
- court will not issue direction when authority has already initiated action
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 89
Citation not available, 2025:MHC:535
Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj, Mr.A.Arivuchandran
1. The Chairman, V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust, Tuticorin; 2. The Chief Vigilance Officer, V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust, Tuticorin; 3. P.Arul Selva Nathan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking mandamus to direct respondents to consider representation, conduct enquiry against third respondent, and consider petitioner for the post of Junior Engineer
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 25.02.2019, conduct an enquiry and take action against the third respondent, and consider the petitioner for the post of Junior Engineer
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the third respondent had obtained appointment by producing a fake work experience certificate and that he, standing third in the selection process, was denied appointment despite the vacancy
Previous Decisions
Previous decisions not referenced
Issues
Whether a direction should be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and to conduct an enquiry against the third respondent for allegedly producing a fake certificate
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer after a lapse of more than 10 years from the completion of the recruitment process
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that he stood third in the selection process, the third respondent was selected by undue influence and fake certificate, and therefore the respondents should take action and consider him for the post
Respondents submitted that a charge memo had already been issued against the third respondent and an enquiry was ongoing, and that the prayer to consider the petitioner for the post was not maintainable due to the inordinate delay of over 10 years after the recruitment process was completed
Ratio Decidendi
When the authority has already initiated appropriate action by issuing a charge memo and appointing an enquiry officer, no direction is required. A prayer to consider a candidate for appointment to a post after completion of recruitment process and a lapse of over 10 years is unsustainable in law due to delay and laches.
Judgment Excerpts
charge memo has been issued on 09.10.2024 as against the above persons and an enquiry officer has been appointed and the enquiry process is going on.
As for the relief to consider the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer, the recruitment process had already been completed in the year 2009 and the writ petition came to be instituted after a lapse of more than 10 years. As such, the said prayer is not sustainable in law.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed the writ petition in 2019. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court delivered the order on 20.02.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
