Madras High CourtWP(MD)/3185/2021dismissed

Vinotha.T v. The Director General Of Police

2025-10-31Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.(MD) No.2526 of 2021 T.Vinotha ... Petitioner -vs1.The Director General of Police O/o.The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 004 2.The Additional Director General of Police (Battalion) O/o.The Additional Director General of Police (Battalion) Chennai-10 3.The Commandant Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion, Manimutharu Tirunelveli District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings

Na.Kaa.No.A2/6634/2009 dated 24.07.2010 and consequential impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings Na.Ka.No.A2/11368/2012 dated 28.09.2012 and consequential impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings Na.Ka.No.A2/11261/2019 dated 20.12.2019 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service within the period as stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner :

Mr.Mohammed Zamil for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents :

Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 24.07.2010, 28.09.2012 and 20.12.2019, all passed by the third respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner for being reinstated into service.

2. The petitioner was provisionally selected as a Police Constable by the respondents pursuant to the recruitment process. However, according to the petitioner, due to her medical condition, she was unable to undergo the training as ordered by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner's appointment was cancelled by the respondents on 24.07.2010. However, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not challenge the cancellation order dated 24.07.2010 at the first instance. Even without challenging the same, after a long lapse of time, the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents seeking to reinstate her into service.

Without challenging the cancellation order, cancelling the petitioner's appointment, the question of entertaining the petitioner's representation seeking to reinstate her into service does not arise. The impugned orders dated 28.09.2012 and 20.12.2019 are all passed by the third respondent rejecting the petitioner's representation seeking to reinstate her into service. Without challenging the order dated 24.07.

earlier orders passed by the respondents cannot be entertained on the ground of laches.

3. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 31.10.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk To:

1.The Director General of Police, O/o.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 004.

2.The Additional Director General of Police (Battalion), O/o.The Additional Director General of Police (Battalion), Chennai-10.

3.The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, Battalion, Manimutharu, Tirunelveli District.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

krk and W.M.P.(MD) No.2526 of 2021 31.10.2025