G.Jayavel v. Union Of India,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN G.Jayavel ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Union of India Rep. by Secretary Anushakthi Bhavan CSM Marg Mumbai 400 001 2.The Chief Administrative Officer 3.The Administrative Officer

4.The Assistant Personnel Officer ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 05.07.2024 passed in OA/310/00672/2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same, consequent to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Driver (Ordinary Grade) at par with the candidates selected and appointed as per advertisement No.GSO/01/2012 dated 25.09.2012 with all attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Malaichamy For Respondents : Mr.Venkataswamy Babu Senior Panel Counsel Government of India

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

To the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment retrospectively on par with the candidates who were selected pursuant to the notification dated 25.09.2012, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the

original application came to be rejected on the ground of laches by recording that the petitioner had approached the Court belatedly after four years.

2.From the records, we find that the petitioner had unsuccessfully participated in the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 25.09.2012. If at all, the petitioner was of the view that he was entitled to be appointed, he ought to have approached the Tribunal within a reasonable time. In the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, no satisfactory reason has been assigned by the petitioner herein explaining the laches on his part. The Tribunal has also recorded that there was an inordinate delay in claiming his appointment and on that ground has rejected it.

3.We find no reason as to why the order of the Tribunal should be interfered with. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. No costs. [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 03.06.2025 kas

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

kas To.

1.The Secretary Union of India Anushakthi Bhavan CSM Marg Mumbai 400 001 2.The Chief Administrative Officer 3.The Administrative Officer 4.The Assistant Personnel Officer 03.06.2025