Madras HC Rejects Retired Salem Constable’s Promotion Bid, Citing Decades’ Delay And Her Comparator’s Different Police Range

The petitioner was recruited as a Grade-I Constable on 23 February 1981, and her seniority was fixed after training.

She relied on seniority revisions and consequential relief granted in proceedings involving Yashothai and other police personnel, and sought promotion as Inspector from the dates on which her juniors were promoted.

The respondents opposed the claim, arguing that the petitioner had challenged her seniority only after retiring on 30 June 2019 and that Yashothai belonged to the Ramanathapuram Range, whereas the petitioner belonged to the Salem Range.

The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, and relief may be refused where a petitioner approaches the Court after an inordinate, unexplained delay, particularly where settled seniority or third-party rights may be affected.

The Court relied on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, and State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566, on delay and laches; it also referred to C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115, State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683, and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 54.

Further, the Court relied on its decision in W.P. No. 14518 of 2022 and connected cases, which held that Salem Range petitioners were not similarly placed with Yashothai, who belonged to the Ramanathapuram Range.

The petitioner sought to reopen seniority fixed in 1981 only after her retirement in 2019, having continued in service without challenging it. Applying the principles of delay and laches, the Court held that the claim was belated and that settled seniority should not be disturbed after such a lapse of time.

Independently, the petitioner could not establish parity with Yashothai because they belonged to different ranges; the Court considered its earlier ruling on the same range distinction applicable to the present case.

No costs were awarded.