Serious action against litigants filing multiple petitions: HC

CHENNAI: Observing that the practice of filing writ petition after writ petition for the same relief during the pendency of the first writ petition can be encouraged under no circumstances by High Courts, Justice S M Subramaniam of the Madras High Court held that “whenever such instances are noticed by the HC, serious actions are to be taken.” The judge made this observation while rejecting a petition filed by C Sujatha, a former draughtsman from Dharmapuri.

The petitioner prayed for a direction to the government to reinstate the petitioner in service and to grant time for passing the remaining one paper of the departmental test and then issue orders declaring satisfactory completion of probation.

However, the judge rejected the petition on observing that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds for the post of draughtsman in the assistant director of survey and lands records, Dharmapuri in 2007 but she failed to clear the tests within a timeframe.

“As per Rule 26 (b) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, in case the probationer fails to pass any of the tests or examinations for which he has so appeared, the appointing authority shall by order, discharge him from the service. Misplaced sympathy or leniency in such matters would lead to bad precedence and result in invalidating the rules, which are otherwise constitutional or to be scrupulously followed by the authorities,” the judge held while dismissing the plea.

He further mentioned that the petitioner had filed another petition for the same relief and the same was dismissed by the court when the first one was pending, adding that in recent days, such practice (filing one petition after another) is increasing on account of long pendency of cases and based on the ill-advised by few legal brains.

“In this context, this court directed the petitioner to be present, who in turn informed this court that she was misguided by stating that the earlier writ petition was dismissed in the year 2016 itself. However, the petitioner also had not verified the same nor possessed any such order or otherwise. By taking a lenient view and considering the fact that the petitioner was misguided by the lawyer, this court is not imposing any cost or proposing to initiate any further action. However, such practices of the litigants are to be deprecated,” Justice Subramaniam held.