Madras High Court· 22 July 2026
Is a writ petition challenging a promotion panel maintainable years later, where the Service Rules provide an appeal and a period within which the grievance must be raised?
The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 002 v. R.Murugesan
WA No. 2012 of 2026 · WA No. 2012 of 2026
Coram: Justice S.M.Subramaniam · Justice N.Senthilkumar
Answer
No. Where the Service Rules provide an appeal or revision and require grievances relating to revision of seniority and promotion to be redressed within three years, a writ petition instituted long afterwards — here nine years after the test for the 2003 panel — falls foul of both delay and laches and the rule that an alternate remedy must first be exhausted. A writ court that grants relief without considering that delay errs.
Headnote
Service Rules — Delay and laches — Alternate remedy — Promotion panel — Cut-off marks —
Service Rules — Delay and laches — Grievance to be redressed within three years —
Held: A writ petition filed nine years after the promotion test, without the appeal or revision the Service Rules provide, falls foul of delay and laches; grievances relating to revision of seniority and promotion must be redressed within three years. (¶5, ¶6)
Promotion to Sub Inspector — Cut-off marks — Marks secured to be measured against the cut-off —
Held further: The writ court weighed neither the delay nor the cut-off fixed by the department against the marks secured. Writ order set aside; appeal allowed. (¶6, ¶7)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 5In the context of above facts, it is to be noted that the writ petition has been instituted in the year 2012, after a lapse of about nine years from the date of completion of the test conducted by the Department for inclusion of the name of the respondent in the panel of the year 2003 for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. That apart, challenging the decision taken by the authorities, the respondent has not preferred any appeal or revision as contemplated under the Service Rules applicable. The writ petition ought to have been rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
Paragraph 6Secondly, the alternate remedy contemplated under the Service Rules had not been exhausted. Even on merits, the respondent passed the written test and was permitted to participate in the Drill Test and Viva-voce and he secured 50.14 marks out of 100. However, the cut-off for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 2003 was fixed at 65.34. Thus, the respondent was within the zone of consideration for inclusion of his name in the panel of Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) for the year 2003. Delay and laches is not considered by the Writ Court. That apart, the cut off marks fixed by the department at 65.34 was also not taken into consideration with reference to the marks secured by the respondent ie., 50.14. Even as per the Rules, grievances relating to revision of seniority and promotion must be redressed within a period of three years. However, the writ petition itself has been instituted after a lapse of nine years.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 002 v. R.Murugesan — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →