Mandamus cannot issue routinely to consider representations absent an established legal right.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, to consider her representation dated 28 October 2024 seeking refixation of her seniority above the third respondent, P. Arumugam.

She stated that she was appointed as a Xerox Operator on 1 April 1999, promoted as Examiner on 21 October 2008, and thereafter promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 26 August 2014.

Her case was that the third respondent, who was appointed as an Office Assistant on 5 April 1999, was junior to her.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not furnished particulars regarding the third respondent’s subsequent promotions, and that the representation was not supported by any acknowledgment of receipt.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution requiring the competent authority to consider her representation for refixation of seniority, despite incomplete particulars concerning the alleged junior and the absence of proof of submission of the representation?

Whether a writ court should routinely direct an authority to consider a representation concerning a stale or otherwise unestablished service claim, when the petitioner has not demonstrated a subsisting legal right or infringement of such right?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that a writ of mandamus is not issued as a routine direction to authorities to consider representations; the petitioner must first establish a legal right and its infringement.

It further relied on the applicable Service Rules, under which claims for refixation of seniority and related service grievances must be raised before the competent authority within three years.

The Court also held that a representation must be properly submitted and supported by sufficient material establishing the asserted entitlement; courts should not permit representations to revive dead causes of action or reopen issues without a demonstrated legal basis.

The Court found that the petitioner had provided only incomplete information regarding the third respondent’s service history and subsequent promotions, which was material to determining the comparative seniority claim.

Since the petitioner did not establish the necessary factual and legal foundation for refixation of seniority, the Court held that even a direction merely to consider the representation could not appropriately be granted.

The absence of acknowledgment supporting submission of the representation further weakened the claim.

Applying the principle that mandamus requires proof of an enforceable right and corresponding infringement, the Court declined to issue a routine “consideration” direction, observing that such directions could merely lead to further litigation without adjudicating the underlying dispute.

The writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation was therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.