IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.08.2009 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.8447 OF 2007 S.Thangaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government Home Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.379 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the respondents pertaining to the order RC.No.007618/NGB-IV(1)/2001 dated 15.05.2001 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider his promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police by including his name at the appropriate place in the "C" list of Head-Constable fit for promotion on Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1985 with all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kalaiselvan For Respondents : Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya Additional Government pleader O R D E R
The petitioner was recruited as Grade II Police Constable on 06.05.1969. He was promoted as Grade I Police Constable by an order dated 03.12.1971. He was further promoted as Head Constable in the year 1985.
2.There was a selection to the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 1985. The selection was based on written test, drill test and viva voice. The marks for written test were 50, marks for drill test were 30 and marks for viva voice were 20. The petitioner obtained 62 > marks and the list was prepared for persons who obtained 65 marks and above. Hence, his name was not included in the “C” list.
3.The persons similarly situated like the petitioner by name Mr.Kamaraj and 3 others filed W.P.No.7825 of 1986 before this Court, challenging the aforesaid “C” list and for inclusion of their names in the “C” list. The writ petition was allowed and the Department filed W.A.Nos.220 and 305 of 1989. Ultimately, the direction in the writ petition was confirmed in the writ appeals. Pursuant to the same, those four persons were included in the “C” list of the year 1985 at serial Nos.65(a) to 65(d).
4.On the formation of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) two other persons viz., Mr.R.Damodharan and Mr.K.M.Mohammed Hussain approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.Nos.1218 and 1339 of 1989. The Tribunal allowed those applications on 04.05.1998 based on the aforesaid orders of this Court.
5.Again four persons viz., P.Thimma Reddy, N.Karuppuswamy, K.Sukumaran and A.Arumugham filed O.A.Nos.1338, 1532 to 1534 of 1989 respectively. The Tribunal allowed those applications also by an order dated 30.07.1998, following the earlier judgment dated 04.05.1998 in O.A.Nos.1218 and 1339 of 1989.
6.Implementing those orders, the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Chennai issued the proceedings dated 17.07.2000, that the aforesaid six persons are assigned rank in the “C” List of 1985 as follows:
"S.No. Name Placement proposed by Range Deputy Inspector General 1. K.Sukumaran 65(e) 2. R.Damodaran 65 (f) 3. K.A.Md.Hussain 65 (g) 4. N.Karuppasamy 65 (h) 5. A.Arumugam 65 (i) 6. Thimma Reddy 65 (j) "
7.Since all those six persons obtained less marks than the petitioner, the petitioner rightly made a representation dated 21.11.2000 to the Director General of Police to include his name also in the “C” list of 1985 at appropriate place, above those six persons, and to promote him as Sub-Inspector of Police at an earlier date and also to promote him as Inspector of Police accordingly.
8.Since no order was passed, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.9143 of 2000, praying to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 21.11.2000. The Tribunal, passed an order on 15.12.2000, directing the Director General of Police to pass orders within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the said order on the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2000.
9.Ultimately, the Director General of Police passed the impugned order dated 15.05.2001, rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that those six persons obtained orders from the Tribunal positively to include their names in the “C” list of 1985 and since the petitioner did not obtain any such order, he is not entitled to get included in the “C” list of 1985 and for consequential order thereon.
10.The petitioner filed O.A.No.379 of 2002 to quash the aforesaid order dated 15.05.2001.
11.On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.8447 of 2007.
12.Heard the submissions made by Mr.A.Kalaiselvan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents.
13.The petitioner states that the Department should have implemented the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.7825 of 1986 and W.A.Nos.220 and 305 of 1989, all the persons who are covered by the numbers stated therein. On the other hand, the Department forced individual employees to approach the Court of law. Only when the Additional Director General of Police issued an order dated 17.07.2000, including the aforesaid six persons in the “C” list of 1985, he came to know that he was not given the same benefit. The petitioner points out that all those six persons obtained less marks and it gives the particulars of the marks obtained by them and the marks obtained by him and the same are extracted here-under:
"S.No. Name Marks Seniority 1. Sugumaran, H.C.456 62 = 81 2. Dhamodaran, H.C.1494 61 > 85 3. Mohammed Hussain, H.C.1482 61 = 88 4. Karuppusamy, H.C.703 61 < 89 5. Arumugam, H.C.414 60 = 96"
14.The petitioner further contends that this Court passed orders in W.P.Nos.7825 of 1986 based on the batch of Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal in the order dated 07.08.1992 in O.A.No.2176 of 1991, wherein four categories of persons were directed to be included in the “C” list of 1985 and the first category of persons were Head Constables, who obtained marks above 50 and these three persons would rank above all the other 3 categories of persons.
15.Applying the said judgment, the Director General of Police issued proceedings dated 26.04.1993 which includes the petitioner’s name at serial No.79 in the “C” list of 1985 and others viz., Sugumaran, Dhamodharan, Mohammed Hussain, Karuppusamy and Arumugham were assigned serial numbers below him at 81, 85, 88, 89 and 96 respectively and thereafter, all of them including petitioner were promoted as Sub Inspector of Police. But after getting the aforesaid order dated 04.05.1998 in O.A.Nos.1218 and 1339 of 1989 and in O.A.Nos.1338 and 1532 to 1534 of 1989, the aforesaid persons were assigned serial Nos. 65(e) to 65(i). In fact, the petitioner points out Mr.Thimma Reddy, who obtained 59 marks was not even included in the proceedings dated 26.04.1993.
16.In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the Director General of Police is not justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner. Whatever benefits were extended to the six persons viz., Sugumaran, Dhamodharan, Mohammed Hussain, Karuppusamy, Arumugham and Thimma Reddy should be given to the petitioner also. The claim of the petitioner that since he obtained 62 > marks, which is higher than the marks of all those six persons, his claim should not have been rejected by the Director General of Police.
17.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.05.2001 is quashed and the second respondent is directed to issue orders, placing the petitioner at an appropriate place in the “C” list of 1985 and to consequently promote him as Sub-Inspector of police at an earlier date to which he is entitled to and also to give further promotion as Inspector of Police.
18.The second respondent is directed to complete the said exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19.In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
TK
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home Department
Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police
Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004