T.Nanjan v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.10.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.27441 of 2017 T.Nanjan ... Petitioner -VsThe District Collector Nilgiris District Udhagamandalam ... Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.09.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondent : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.4.2014. But his grievance is that in spite of passing of all the requisite tests before the crucial date, he was not given promotion. It is also the claim of the petitioner that on 13.1.2003, a representation was given to the respondent seeking temporary relinquishment to participate in the Firka Revenue Inspector course for a period of three years. Thereafter, another representation was sent to the respondent, one month prior to the expiry of the three years period, namely, on 9.12.2005 seeking to offer him the Firka Revenue Inspector course. But the respondent failed to do so. Subsequently, in 2007, on the crucial date, due to the irresponsible attitude of the respondent, his name was not considered. Therefore, the representation given on 15.9.2017 to the respondent seeking promotion from the date on which the three years relinquishment period expired should be directed to be considered.

2. But this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition due to lapse of time. As mentioned above, when the petitioner was not considered for his inclusion on the crucial date viz., 15.9.2007, he should have made a fresh representation to the original authority, which he has not done. No https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

representation whatsoever has also been produced along with the documents filed in support of the writ petition. Secondly, he retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.4.2014. Even after retirement, the records show that for the first time, only on 15.9.2017, after a lapse of 31⁄2 years, he has given the representation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider his request. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ss To The District Collector Nilgiris District Udhagamandalam +1cc to Mr.R.Jayaprakash, Advocate, S.R.No.76008 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.76391 W.P.No.27441 of 2017 PPA(CO) CA(10/11/2017) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/