IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
W.P.NO.34017 OF 2006
C.Varadarajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Chennai-2.
2.The Inspector General of Police,
and the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Original Application No.8573 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in C.No.A1/42631/98 dated 15.10.1998 and to direct the respondents to include the applicant's name in the 'C' list drawn for Head constable found fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1998 (Local) and to include his name in the appropriate seniority above his immediate junior and to promote him as Sub Inspector of Police and to award all consequential benefits. Since the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Soundararajan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Government Advocate
O R D E R
Original Application No.8573 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in C.No.A1/42631/98 dated 15.10.1998 and to direct the respondents to include the applicant’s name in the ‘C’ list drawn for Head constable found fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1998 (Local) and to include his name in the appropriate seniority above his immediate junior and to promote him as Sub Inspector of Police and to award all consequential benefits. Since the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition.
2.The petitioner was enlisted as a Grade-II Police Constable on 15.09.1978 in the Ramanthapuram District and he was promoted as a Head Constable on 05.06.1993. The petitioner was transferred from Ramanathapuram District and posted to Madurai City on 19.9.1995, at his request. Since the transfer from Ramanathapuram District to Madurai City was at the request of the petitioner, as per the rules in force, he was placed at the bottom of the seniority list, that is below one Raja Head Constable 1331. The said Raja Head Constable 1331 was promoted as Head Constable on 23.12.1994. Earlier to him, the petitioner, Varadharajan was promoted as Head Constable on 5.6.1993 that is almost 1 1/2 years before Raja. In the year 1998 the Range Promotion Board Test was scheduled to be held on 16.10.1998. The petitioner has opted for writing the Range promotion Board Test. The petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 9.10.1998, to include his name for participating the Range Promotion Board Test and that was negatived by the memo dated 15.10.1998, issued by the Inspector and Commissioner of police, Madurai City stating that the petitioner’s immediate junior one Head Constable Raja HC 1331 did not complete four years service as Head Constable and petitioner is not eligible to participate in the written test conducted by the Range Promotion Board. The memo clearly states that the petitioner is not eligible to write the test to be held on 16.10.1998 for the above said reason. Challenging the same, the Original Application has been filed in the year 1998 and renumbered as W.P.No.34017 of 2006.
3.It is the contention of the petitioner that the memorandum dated 29th September dated 1998 was issued by the Director General of police for the drawal of ‘C’ lists of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors for the year 1998 by conducting a Range Promotion Board Test. The said memorandum was issued in terms of Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. Para 5 of the memorandum is extracted here under:
“5.The Range Promotion Boards shall hold written Tests and those men who are successful in the written Tests shall be subjected to Viva Voce examination including a Drill Test. Those eligible Head Constables/Temporery Sub-Inspectors who have not crossed 53 years of age as on 01.07.1998 and who have put in not less than 4 years service in the rank of Head Constables with a minimum total service of 7 years alone are entitled to participate in the promotion tests.”
This is in line with Rule 3(d) of the Tamil Nadu police Subordinate Service Rules, which is relevant for the present case and the rule is extracted here under:
“3(d) In the list of Head Constables or Head Constables (AR) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspectors of Police or Sub-Inspectors of police (AR) as the case may be, only men satisfying the following qualification shall be included.
G.O.Ms.No.410, dated 19-4-2001
(i) Must have a good working knowledge of English.
(ii) Must not have completed 53 years of age on the first day of July of the year in which the selection for promotion of Head Constables or Head Constable (AR) as Sub-Inspectors of Police or sub-Inspectors of Police (AR) as a case my be is held.
(iii) Must have completed a total service of seven years and must have served as Head Constable or Head Constable (AR) as the case may be, whether permanent or officiating for a period of not less than four years on the date of commencement of training.
The Superintendents of Police will submit the lists prepared by them to the Range Promotion Board. The Range Promotion Board shall after scrutiny of the lists submit its recommendation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned, who shall decide the number of Head Constables or Head Constables (AR) to be admitted to the written test which will be held at the Central Place in the range. The Range Promotion Board shall thereafter hold a viva-voce examination including a Drill test for those who are successful at the written test, select the men for training prescribed in rule 18 and send the list to the respective Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned for approval and final orders.”
4.According to the petitioner he satisfies all the three conditions and therefore he should be allowed to participate in the Range Promotion Board test and his name should have been included in the ‘C’ list. The reason given in the memo under challenging is without any basis and not supported by any rules and regulations.
5.Heard, Mr.B.Vijay, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, also submitted that the petitioner on his own sought for transfer from Ramnad District to Madurai City and therefore he was placed as a junior most in the seniority list under the said Raja HC 1331, in accordance with the procedure adopted by the Police Department and hence his claim was rejected.
6.The petitioner satsifies all the three conditions contained in Rule 3(d) as stated out above, is entitled to participate in the Range Promotion Board test. The memorandum denying the said benefit is totally without any basis and is contrary of Rule 3(d). Admittedly the petitioner has four years of service as Head Constable on the date, when the Range Promotion Board Test was conducted on 16.10.1998. In such view of the matter it is no consequence that the said Raja HC 1331, has not completed four years. This objection is contrary to the Rules. In the result the memo is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside.
7.In so far as the right of the petitioner’s name to be included in the ‘C’ list is concerned, it is now fairly submitted that the Range Promotion Board has already been given up. The promotion in all cases is based on merits or seniority. Setting aside the order merely will serve no useful purpose unless the consequential benefits go to the petitioner, at this point of time. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate the Division Bench decision in W.P.No21652 of 2005 dated 18.3.2005, which is based on the suggestion made by the Director General of police the Division Bench passed the following order. Paragraph 7 is extracted hereunder:
“7.Having regard to the above facts; various Government orders and the alternate suggestion made by the Director General of police in his letter referred to in G.O.(2D) dated 4.7.2001, we dispose of the writ petition setting aside the order in challenge as here under:
“The first respondent’s name shall be included in the ‘C’ list of head constable fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1985 at the bottom of that list for that year. The first respondent is not entitled to get any monetary benefits for the period commencing from 1985 till 1989 in which year he was temporarily promoted as Sub Inspector of Police. However, the first respondent will have all other benefits except the monetary benefits based on his name being included in the ‘C’ list of head constable fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of police for the year 1985.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.”
8.In the present case, the petitioner was denied opportunity to participate in the test for no fault of his and also on an mis-interpretation of the rule. The petitioner is therefore, entitled for inclusion of his name in the ‘C’ list, for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1998. However, he will be placed at the bottom of the ‘C’ list of that year. The petitioner will not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period from the date on which he will be included in the ‘C’ list till he was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to all other service benefits except monetary benefits for the period i.e., the date on which his name added in the ‘C’ list till actual promotion of the Sub Inspector of Police. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
02.02.2010
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Chennai-2.
2.The Inspector General of Police,
and the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
vsm
W.P. NO.34017 of 2006
02.02.2010