Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, V.M. Kousalyaa, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent, the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, to consider her representation dated 28.10.2024 for refixation of seniority and to place her above the third respondent. The petitioner claimed that she was appointed as Xerox Operator on 01.04.1999, promoted to Examiner on 21.10.2008 and to Junior Assistant with effect from 26.08.2014. She contended that the third respondent was subsequently appointed as Office Assistant on 05.04.1999 and was therefore junior to her. However, the petitioner did not furnish complete details about further promotions of the third respondent to higher posts. The representation was also not supported by any acknowledgment. The court noted that refixation of seniority and redressal of related grievances must be addressed to the competent authority within three years under the Service Rules in force. The core legal issue was whether a writ of mandamus could be issued merely to direct consideration of a representation without establishing a legal right or infringement. The court held that under Article 226, a right or infringement of right must be established for entertaining a writ petition; routine directions to consider representations would not serve justice and could cause prejudice to parties. It further observed that litigants often send representations either to revive dead causes of action or to obtain orders on merits from authorities, and such practices must be thwarted. The court dismissed the writ petition with no costs, concluding that no direction could be issued based on incomplete particulars and absence of established legal right.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226 Constitution of India - Requirement of Established Legal Right - In a writ petition seeking direction to consider a representation for seniority refixation, the High Court held that a legal right or infringement of right must be established before entertaining the petition; routine direction to consider representation would do no service to justice and may cause prejudice to either party - Held that in the absence of established right, no writ is entertainable (Paras 4, 7). B) Service Law - Seniority Dispute - Limitation and Service Rules - Grievances related to refixation of seniority are to be addressed to the competent authority within a period of three years as per Service Rules in force; the petitioner failed to furnish complete details about further promotions of the third respondent, and the representation was not supported by acknowledgment - Held that based on incomplete particulars, the petition cannot be considered for relief even to consider the representation (Paras 3, 5). C) Judicial Review - Practice of Representations to Revive Dead Cause - Misuse of Writ Jurisdiction - The court observed that another modus operandi of litigants is to send representation either to restore dead cause of action or to obtain an order on merits from the authority so as to reopen closed departmental issues without establishing legal right; such practice has increased and is to be thwarted - Held that writ courts should not encourage routine directions to consider representations (Paras 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.10.2024 for refixation of seniority, in the absence of establishment of a legal right or infringement and with incomplete particulars regarding the junior.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. The court held that no direction could be issued to consider the representation due to absence of established legal right, incomplete particulars, and lack of acknowledgment. The petition was not entertained under Article 226.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution requires establishment of a legal right or infringement of right
- routine direction to consider representation not to be issued
- seniority grievances to be addressed within three years as per Service Rules
- representation must be supported by acknowledgment and material particulars
- practice of sending representation to revive dead cause of action is to be thwarted.
