C.Prabhakaran, Special Sub v. The Director General Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :19.07.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P. No.17971 of 2017 C.Prabhakaran ... Petitioner .Vs.
The Director General of Police, Director General of Police Office, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 600 004.
....Respondent Prayer : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2017 and to direct the respondent to follow to the seniority in the selection of Sub Inspector of police and pass orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Madhu Prakash For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The relief sought in this writ petition is for a direction to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 21.06.2017.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner strenuously contended that the respondent has not considered the representation seeking promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Though the learned counsel is able to submit that, some of the juniors of the writ petitioner were already promoted and no challenge is made, in spite of the promotional order passed in favour of the juniors of the writ petitioner. In the absence of challenging the orders passed in favor of the juniors, no further consideration can be shown in this writ petition.
3.This apart, even to issue a direction to consider the representation, the basic requirement is that the writ petitioner has to establish a semblance of right. In the absence of any right established in the writ petition, no such direction can be issued to the authorities. This Court cannot be used as a special purposes vehicle to carry any such recommendatory order by way of direction.
4. Any writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be entertained only in the event of establishing a right. Establishing the right by the writ petitioner, is a precondition to move the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such being the legal dictum, this Court is not inclined to consider the prayer, as such sought, to issue a direction to the respondent to consider the representation in a routine manner.
5. There are more than 14 lakhs Government Servants employed by the State of Tamil Nadu. The employees are expressing their grievances in one way or the other. They have submitted innumerable representations / appeals to the authorities concerned. It is not necessary that every such representations / appeals, which are submitted, have to be considered. The representations / appeals which are submitted in accordance with law establishing their rights and violation alone are necessary to be considered and suitable orders have to be passed by the competent authorities.
6.The writ petitioner cannot use this Court as an instrument to take some order by way of recommendation to the authorities so that he can show the order to the authorities for getting the orders in one way or other. This Court cannot be a party to such proceedings and the Constitutional Courts are to be vigilant in issuing such directions, in the absence of an iota of right established by the writ petitioner, while moving this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this Court is of the firm view that establishing a semblance of right by the writ petitioner is the basic requirement for initiating any writ proceedings.
7. Accordingly, no further adjudication or consideration is required in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS VIII) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar
To.
The Director General of Police, Director General of Police Office, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 600 004.
+ 1 cc to M/s.M.Madhu Prakash, Advocate,SR.51291 + 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.50949 W.P. No.17971 of 2017 SV(CO) NR 16/08/2017