V.Valarmathi v. The Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A.No.670 & 671 of 2025 V.Valarmathi ... Appellant in both W.A.s Vs.

1.The Director, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036.

2.The Dean Administration, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036.

3.The Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036.

... Respondents in both W.A.s PRAYER in W.A.No.670 of 2025: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 23.01.2024 made in W.P.No.9964 of 2021.

PRAYER in W.A.No.671 of 2025: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 22.11.2017 made in W.P.No.29967 of 2017.

For Appellants : Mr.M.Selvam Page No.: 1 of 5

For Respondents : Mr.Karthik Rajan for M/s.Menon Karthik ****** C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) Both the appeals are without merit. The petitioner participated in the selection process for Junior Technician held on 21.12.2009. She was not successful. After nearly 8 years, in 2017, she made a representation claiming that she should have been considered in one of the posts which was left unfilled in the Physics Department. The representation was made on 17.07.2017 and the petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.No.29967 of 2017 seeking disposal of the said representation. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 22.11.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner again made a second representation on 01.02.2021 and had filed another writ petition in W.P.No.9964 of 2021. The said writ petition was also dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that it is a second round of litigation. The appellant has now filed the two appeals challenging both the orders.

2. The selection process was completed in the year 2009 itself. The --------------------- Page No.: 2 of 5

petitioner has made a representation only in the year 2017. The writ Court had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay. Even after the rejection, the appellant has chosen to make another representation and filed another Writ Petition, which was also dismissed. The delay of 9 years in challenging the recruitment process is fatal to the claim of the appellant.

3. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the writ Court. Both the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. (R.S.M.,J.) (G.A.M.,J.) 13.03.2025 dsa Index : No : No Speaking order Page No.: 3 of 5

To 1.The Director, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036.

2.The Dean Administration, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036.

3.The Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036.

--------------------- Page No.: 4 of 5

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

and G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

dsa W.A.No.670 & 671 of 2025 13.03.2025 Page No.: 5 of 5