# Y. S. ClzitcJe, K. Alairumc.lai, R. N. Nath and v. Marakrishnt.n

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 356
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-10-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1131 of 1974
- **Bench:** K. K. Mathew, A. ALAGIRlSWAMI
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/y-s-clzitcje-k-alairumc-lai-r-n-nath-and-v-marakrishnt-n-6305
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226-Laches and stale claims as grounds for
refusal to exercise powers unier.
A person aggrieved by an order promoting a junior over his head should approach the court within six months, or a.t 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 n sound ~nd 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 considermg legitimate grievances and the High Court rightly dismissed the petition.
[357 C-F; 358 A-BJ.
C1v1L APPELLATE JURiSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1131 of 1974
Anpeal by Spedal Leave from the
Judgment &
Order dated
5th February 1974 of the Madras High Court in W. Appeal No.
'67/1974.
Y. S. ClzitcJe, K. Alairumc.lai, R. N. Nath and V. Marakrishnt.n,
for the appelhnt.
S. Govind Swaminathan, Adi,ocate General, for the Stare 1>f Tamil
Nadu, A. V. Rangam and A. Subha.1hi'1i, for respondent No. I.
A. T. M. Samp:;th, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgmel\t of the Court was delivered by
ALA.GIRt~WAMI. J. The appellant entered service as a Junior Engineer 'in the Highways Department of the then Province of Mat.ras 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
Assistaht Engineer along with res,.ondents 2 to 4 and was placed above
them in rank. In 1957 the 2nd respondent was promoted as Division-ii Engineer. Thereupon the appellant made a representation to
the Gw~rnment. He made another representation in the same year.
He m1de two farther representations in the year 1968 to consider his
case for pr,1mntion as Superintending Engineer along with his juniors.
Respmdents 2 to 4 were again promoted as Superintending En~ineers
over the head of the appellant. In 1970 the ~th mpondent who was
junbr to the ap;iellant as Assistant Engineer and Divisional Engineer
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
P. s. SADA SIVASWAMY v. TAMIL NADU (Alagiriswami, 1.)
357
was promoted Superintending Engineer over the head of the appellant. The appellant himself was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 23-1-197 J, 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
wa~ junior to him as Assistant Engineer was promoted as Divisional
Engineer in 1957 b) relaxing the relevant rules regarding the length of
service ne,essary for promotion as Divisional Engineer and that his
claim for a similar relaxation was not considered at that time. 111e
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 ~tatement 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 b) it.

## Text

356
P.S. SADASTVASWAMY
1'.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
October 7, 1974
[K. K. MATHEW AND A. ALAGIRlSWAMI, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226-Laches and stale claims as grounds for
refusal to exercise powers unier.
A person aggrieved by an order promoting a junior over his head should approach the court within six months, or a.t 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 n sound ~nd 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 considermg legitimate grievances and the High Court rightly dismissed the petition.
[357 C-F; 358 A-BJ.
C1v1L APPELLATE JURiSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1131 of 1974
Anpeal by Spedal Leave from the
Judgment &
Order dated
5th February 1974 of the Madras High Court in W. Appeal No.
'67/1974.
Y. S. ClzitcJe, K. Alairumc.lai, R. N. Nath and V. Marakrishnt.n,
for the appelhnt.
S. Govind Swaminathan, Adi,ocate General, for the Stare 1>f Tamil
Nadu, A. V. Rangam and A. Subha.1hi'1i, for respondent No. I.
A. T. M. Samp:;th, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgmel\t of the Court was delivered by
ALA.GIRt~WAMI. J. The appellant entered service as a Junior Engineer 'in the Highways Department of the then Province of Mat.ras 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
Assistaht Engineer along with res,.ondents 2 to 4 and was placed above
them in rank. In 1957 the 2nd respondent was promoted as Division-ii Engineer. Thereupon the appellant made a representation to
the Gw~rnment. He made another representation in the same year.
He m1de two farther representations in the year 1968 to consider his
case for pr,1mntion as Superintending Engineer along with his juniors.
Respmdents 2 to 4 were again promoted as Superintending En~ineers
over the head of the appellant. In 1970 the ~th mpondent who was
junbr to the ap;iellant as Assistant Engineer and Divisional Engineer
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
P. s. SADA SIVASWAMY v. TAMIL NADU (Alagiriswami, 1.)
357
was promoted Superintending Engineer over the head of the appellant. The appellant himself was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 23-1-197 J, 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
wa~ junior to him as Assistant Engineer was promoted as Divisional
Engineer in 1957 b) relaxing the relevant rules regarding the length of
service ne,essary for promotion as Divisional Engineer and that his
claim for a similar relaxation was not considered at that time. 111e
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 ~tatement 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 b) it.he should
have approathed the Court even in the year 1957 after the two representations made b) him had failed to produce an) result. One
ca1mot sle'ep over .the matter and come to the Court questioning that
relaxation in the year 1971. There is the. frrther fact that even after
· respondent~ 3 an<l 4 were promoted as Divisional Engineer5 over the
head of the appeJlant he oid not come to the Court questioning it.
There was a third oprortunify 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.
·Jn any case as the Government had decided as a matter of policy, as
the) were entitled to do, not to. relax the rules in fa°l'our of any except
overseas scholars it will be wholl) pointless to direct them to consider
the appellan~s' 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 appel.
!ant. He did not question it. Nor did he question the pr,omotion of
his juniors as Superintending Engineers over. his head. . He could
have co·me to the Court on every one of these three occasions. A
person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head
should approach the Court at least within six months or at the mo~t 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 pPssage of a certain length of time. But it would be
a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the C<'urts 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
S:tJPRBMB CO.ORT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
A.·
. ward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. Tne petitioner's
petition should, therefore, have been dimissed 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.
B
V.P.S.
A;peal dismi11ed.