IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.10.2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.No.15494 of 2006
E.J.Prema ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Director General of Police,
Chennai 4.
2. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, by way of transfer of O.A.No.4440 of 2000, to quash the Endorsement issued by the second respondent herein in his C.No.A1/17387/99 dated 23.09.1999 and consequently direct the respondents to declare the petitioner's probation as deemed to have been completed taking into account her actual promotion as Woman Head Constable as 28.02.1991 and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Woman Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1995 in the substantive vacancy that existed on 01.07.1995 with all consequential monetary and service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ravi Shanmugam
For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Government Advocate
O R D E R
The petitioner joined the Police service as Grade-I Woman Police Constable in the year 1981. She secured the highest mark in the selection. But the seniority was not fixed based on the marks obtained in the selection and the same was fixed based on the age. Hence, the persons, who obtained lesser marks than the petitioner were promoted as Women Head Constables in the year 1991. The petitioner made repeated representations to correct the mistake. Ultimately, the Director General of Police, issued an order dated 07.08.1996, correcting the mistake and a direction was issued to fix the seniority, based on the marks obtained in the selection.
2. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli issued an order dated 13.11.1996 fixing the seniority of Grade-I Women Police Constables, based on the marks obtained in the selection during 1981. The petitioner stands at serial No.1. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, revising the seniority, another order dated 13.11.1996 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, promoting the petitioner with effect from 28.02.1991 as Woman Head Constable and two other persons, who were already promoted, were reverted, as they secured less marks and occupied at lower place in the seniority.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that when her juniors were promoted in the year 1996 as Women Sub-Inspectors of Police, she should have been promoted as Woman Sub-Inspector of Police. According to her, till 1997, the promotion to the post of Woman Sub-Inspector was merely based on the seniority and it was not by way of selection. When the promotion was based on selection, she was promoted in the year 2001 to the post of Woman Sub-Inspector of Police on merit. When she made a request to regularise her service as Woman Sub-Inspector of Police from 1996, as her juniors were promoted as Women Sub-Inspectors of Police, the same was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 23.09.1999, on the ground that the petitioner did not complete her probation during 1996 as Woman Head Constable.
4. The petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.4440 of 2000 to quash the aforesaid order dated 23.09.1999 of the second respondent and for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Woman Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1995 in the substantive vacancy that existed on 01.07.1995 with all consequential monetary and service benefits.
5. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.15494 of 2006.
6. The respondents filed reply affidavit. It is stated therein that since the petitioner did not complete probation during 1996, she is not entitled to promotion to the post of Woman Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1995, when her juniors were promoted.
7. Heard Mr.Ravi Shanmugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
8. The recruitment of Women Police Constables Grade-I took place in the year 1981. The petitioner applied for the same. Three batches of persons were selected. They were sent for training in the Police Recruitment School. They wrote examinations. As per the Adhoc Rules, the seniority has to be fixed based on the marks obtained in the final examinations in the Training Institution. The petitioner obtained the highest marks in the final examinations. The petitioner obtained 326 marks. One Raleena obtained 306< marks and one Mary Pushpa obtained 304 marks.
9. Contrary to the Rules, the seniority was erroneously fixed based on the date of joining of the persons recruited. In view of such an erroneous fixation of seniority, the juniors were promoted at an earlier point of time as Women Head Constables in 1991 overlooking the petitioner. The promotion to the post of Head Constables were merely based on seniority. Hence, the petitioner made repeated representations to revise the seniority as per the Adhoc Rules. Ultimately, the first respondent issued an order dated 07.08.1996 directing the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli to revise the seniority list based on the marks obtained in the final examinations in the Training Institution. Based on the said order dated 07.08.1996 of the first respondent, the Superintendent of Police issued an order dated 13.11.1996 revising the seniority list of Women Constables Grade-I recruited during 1981. Among the 19 persons, the petitioner stands at No.1. Raleena and Mary Pushpa stands at Nos.3 and 5, respectively, in the seniority list.
10. After issuing the aforesaid order dated 13.11.1996, another order dated 13.11.1996 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli promoting the petitioner with effect from 28.02.1991 retrospectively as Woman Head Constable, while reverting two other persons, who secured less marks as Grade-I Women Constables from Women Head Constables. That is, the mistake was corrected and the petitioner was promoted with effect from 28.02.1991 when her juniors were promoted.
11. Till G.O.Ms.No.1730, Home (Police III) Department, dated 28.11.1997, was issued, promotion to the post of Women Sub-Inspectors of Police was only based on the seniority. The women Head Constables, after completion of 4 years of service, are entitled to promotion for the post of Woman Sub-Inspector of Police. After the aforesaid G.O.1730, the promotion to the post of Woman Sub-Inspector of Police was to be done based on the Range Promotion Board after conducting written, drill and Viva-voce tests. The juniors to the petitioners were promoted during 1996 before the G.O.1730 was issued. But, the petitioner was not given promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, while her juniors were promoted. Hence, she made a request for promotion from 1995 on completion of four years of service. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if she is given promotion from 1996 when Raleena and Mary Pushpa were promoted in the year 1996.
12. The petitioner participated in the Range Promotion Board during 2001 and she was selected on merit and she was promoted as Woman Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2001. She wanted her promotion to the post of Woman Sub-Inspector of Police from the date on which her juniors were promoted in 1996 as Women Sub-Inspectors of Police. But, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 23.09.1999 stating that in the year 1996, she did not complete probation and she completed probation only on 03.02.1999.
13. In my view, the reasoning given in the impugned order has no substance, when the first respondent, the higher authority passed an order dated 07.08.1996, directing the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli to revise the seniority based on the marks obtained in the final examination in the Training Institution and accordingly the seniority was revised and the petitioner was fixed at Serial No.1 in the order dated 13.11.1996 of the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli. Further, she was promoted retrospectively with effect from 28.02.1991 as Woman Head Constable. Now, the second respondent could not say that the petitioner did not complete probation, so as to deny her promotion as Woman Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner stands at serial No.1 in the seniority list and the seniority was fixed based on the marks secured in the final examinations. As per Adhoc Rules, she has to be given promotion and further consequential benefits from the date on which her juniors were promoted.
14. In fact, Raleena, who stands at serial No.3 in the seniority list, who obtained 306< marks, was not given promotion in the year 1996, though she was promoted as Woman Head Constable in 1991. Later, she was promoted in the year 2004 as Women Sub-Inspector of Police, while she participated in the Range Promotion Board. She made a representation that she should be promoted with effect from 13.04.1996. The first respondent passed an order dated 29.02.2008 acceding to her request and she was given retrospective promotion with effect from 1996. Based on the said order, the second respondent passed an order dated 02.04.2009, promoting Raleena as Woman Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 13.04.1996.
15. Likewise, Mary Pushpa, who secured 304 marks and stands at serial No.4 in the seniority list, was promoted as Woman Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1996. Based on the orders of the first respondent dated 19.03.2008, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli passed an order dated 15.04.2009 promoting Mary Pushpa as Woman Sub-Inspector of Police with retrospective effect from 1996.
16. The petitioner is not given promotion on par with her juniors, Raleena and Mary Pushpa. Therefore injustice has been done to the petitioner. Mere promoting the petitioner as Woman Head Constable from 1991 is not suffice and she should be also promoted as Woman Sub Inspector of Police from 1996, since it was due to the mistake committed by the Department by drawing the erroneous seniority list. It could have been different matter, if the promotion to the Women Sub-Inspectors of Police is based on selection in 1996. As stated above, the promotion to the post of Women Sub-Inspectors of Police became Selection Post only in 1997. Hence, Raleena and Mary Pushpa were promoted from 1996, though they were promoted by participating in the Range Promotion Board subsequently. In fact, as stated above, Raleena participated in the selection during 2004 and she was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police during 2004, while the petitioner successfully participated in the Selection during 2001 itself. In the case of Raleena, as stated above, she was given retrospective promotion with effect from 1996, but in the case of the petitioner, the second respondent refused to grant the same relief.
17. In my view, the petitioner is entitled to get promotion from 13.04.1996, the date on which her immediate juniors Raleena and Mary Pushpa were promoted as Women Sub-Inspectors of Police. Otherwise, the petitioner could go behind them in their entire career, though the petitioner got Rank No.1 and she could be deprived of the benefit of promotion for no fault of hers.
18. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed. The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate order promoting the petitioner from the date on which her immediate juniors Raleena and Mary Pushpa were promoted with effect from 13.04.1996 as Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, on notional basis. It is stated that the junior Raleena was further promoted as Inspector of Police based on seniority alone. In such an event, the petitioner should also be promoted from the date on which Raleena was promoted and the pay has to be accordingly fixed on notional basis. The first respondent is further directed to complete the said exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.
04.10.2010
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
Note : Issue order copy on 11.10.2010
r n s
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
r n s
To
1. The Director General of Police,
Chennai 4.
2. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.
W.P.No.15494 of 2006
04.10.2010