Judgment :- Common Order: The petitioners in all these cases have come up with a challenge to the show cause notices issued to them by the first respondent, seeking to revise their allotment from Taluk Police to Armed Reserve or from Armed Reserve to Tamil Nadu Special Police for appointment. 2. I have heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these writ petitions and Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents in all these writ petitions. 3. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board issued a Notification for recruitment of Men/Women Sub Inspectors of Police in the year 2006. By the Notification, 445 posts of Men Sub Inspectors of Police and 72 posts of Women Sub Inspectors of Police were sought to be filled up, out of which 20% of the vacancies were reserved for departmental candidates. The Notification was a common Notification for filling up the posts of Sub Inspectors to Taluk Police, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police. However the Notification also indicated that the allotment of selected candidates to Taluk Police, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police (TSP) would be made on the basis of the marks secured and that the rule of reservation for various communities would be applied as per the existing provisions. 4. All the petitioners were already in service in the Police Department and all of them appeared for selection under the 20% quota reserved for departmental candidates. All of them were declared selected and they were also sent for training, either as Sub Inspectors of Police (Taluk Police) or as Sub Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve). 5. A group of unselected candidates filed a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.14482 of 2007 etc., contending that the written examination was not conducted properly and that the viva voce was actually manipulated. All the writ petitions were dismissed by an order dated 20.11.2007 holding that the written test was conducted in a proper manner. The unsuccessful candidates challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions before the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1598 to 1602 of 2007 batch of cases. The Division Bench also dismissed the Writ Appeals by an order dated 23. 2008. The Special Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court were also dismissed on 110. 2008, thereby putting a seal of approval on the selection. 6. The Division Bench also dismissed the Writ Appeals by an order dated 23. 2008. The Special Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court were also dismissed on 110. 2008, thereby putting a seal of approval on the selection. 6. In the meantime, the respondents issued certain proceedings seeking to change the allotment of some of the selected candidates from Taluk Police to Armed Reserve or from Armed Reserve to Tamil Nadu Special Police (TSP). Challenging those revised allotments, the petitioners herein as well as a few others, filed a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.11181 of 2008 etc. Those writ petitions were allowed by a common order dated 7. 2008 primarily on two grounds viz., (i) that the allotment from Taluk Police to Armed Reserve amounted to reversion or reduction to a lower category and hence cannot be ordered without notice and (ii) that under Rules 5 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, 1953, the State Government alone was competent to issue revised allotment orders to the list of approved candidates. .7. Consequent upon the above decision dated 7. 2008 rendered in the batch of cases W.P.No.11181 of 2008 etc., the State Government issued show cause notices dated 12. 2008 to the petitioners herein, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why their allotment shall not be changed either from Taluk Police to Armed Reserve or from Armed Reserve to T.S.P. Challenging these show cause notices, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petitions. 8. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned show cause notices on the following grounds viz.:- .(a) The respondents took a positive stand in the counter affidavits filed in the batch of cases filed by the unsuccessful candidates challenging the selection that the selection and allotment of candidates were made properly in accordance with the marks obtained by the candidates after applying the rules of reservation. After having taken such a stand in the writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates, the respondents have now issued the impugned show cause notices, taking a diametrically opposite position. After having taken such a stand in the writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates, the respondents have now issued the impugned show cause notices, taking a diametrically opposite position. Inasmuch as the respondents are bound by the stand taken in the batch of writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates W.P.No.14482 of 2007 etc., it is not open to the respondents now to contend that there were discrepancies in the application of communal rotation and that therefore there was a need to revise the allotment order. .(b) Rule 5 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, under which the impugned show cause notices are issued, empowers the State Government only to revise the list of approved candidates, prior to their appointment. The Rule does not empower the State Government to revise the list of candidates already appointed from the list of approved candidates. .(c) In any case, the impugned show cause notices do not contain any factual detail enabling the petitioners to make effective representations. The show cause notices merely say that the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) pointed out some discrepancies in the application of communal rotation and that therefore there was a necessity to set right the discrepancies. This is a very vague statement to which none of the petitioners can make any reply and hence according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, the impugned show cause notices are liable to be set aside. 9. In response, Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the stand taken by the respondents in the previous batch of cases had to be understood in the context of the dispute raised by the unsuccessful candidates as against the successful candidates. It had nothing to do with the allotment of candidates on the basis of the marks after applying communal rotation. Moreover, the petitioners challenged the revised allotment orders issued by the Additional Director General of Police on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and the competence of those authorities to issue revised allotment orders in view of Rule 5 of the Special Rules. This Court accepted the above contentions and consequently the Government thought fit to remove those technical objections by taking recourse to Rule 5. This Court accepted the above contentions and consequently the Government thought fit to remove those technical objections by taking recourse to Rule 5. In any event, the proceedings impugned in all the writ petitions are only show cause notices to which the petitioners are obliged to furnish replies and are entitled to come to Court if orders adverse to them are passed. Therefore the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the very show cause notices. 10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. It appears from the two rounds of earlier litigation, one filed by the unsuccessful candidates and the other filed by the present writ petitioners, challenging the revised allotment orders that the respondents themselves are to be blamed for the mess in which they now find themselves in. There has not been either a clarity or consistency in the stand taken by the respondents both with regard to the hierarchy of posts to which appointments were made and with regard to the interchangeability of posts and the powers of the Government to revise the allotments made. The confusion created by the respondents themselves resulted in this Court being led to believe in the second round of litigation (filed by the present petitioners challenging the revised allotment orders) that the allotment of candidates from Taluk Police to Armed Reserve or from Armed Reserve to T.S.P., is a reversion. Even on an earlier occasion, the respondents appear to have taken a stand before the Division Bench of this Court that all the three categories of posts viz., Sub Inspectors (Taluk Police), Sub Inspectors (Armed Reserve) and Sub Inspectors (TSP) are not interchangeable. Yet the Government have passed several orders in the past, right from the year 1996, transferring hundreds of Sub Inspectors from Armed Reserve to Taluk Police, each time calling it as an one time measure. Thus, at every point of time, the respondents appear to have taken different positions, to suit the occasion, without reference to the Special Rules. The confusion is further compounded by a Circular issued by the Director General dated 22. 1987 calling the transfer of a person from local police to Armed Reserve as a punishment. Thus, at every point of time, the respondents appear to have taken different positions, to suit the occasion, without reference to the Special Rules. The confusion is further compounded by a Circular issued by the Director General dated 22. 1987 calling the transfer of a person from local police to Armed Reserve as a punishment. The history of the Subordinate Police Service shows that despite all the three categories of posts carrying the same scale of pay, there is a craving for Taluk Police, for extraneous considerations. Therefore before adverting to the other issues, it is necessary for me to explode the myth as to whether the three categories of posts are superior or inferior to one another, making a transfer from one to the other, either a promotion or a reversion/reduction of category. WHETHER TRANSFER FROM TALUK POLICE TO ARMED RESERVE OR TSP IS A REVERSION: 11. The Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service were originally issued under G.O.Ms.No.2743, Publice (Services) Department, dated 30.9.1953 in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 8 and 10 of the Madras District Police Act, 1859 and Sections 9 and 11 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 read with the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 2 grouped the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service into four Classes viz., Class-I, Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV. Class-I of the service consisted of seven categories of posts, out of which one was abolished in the year 1983. The remaining six categories of posts under Class-I of the service are as follows:- "Category 1. Inspectors of Police and Inspectors in Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. 2. Sub Inspectors of Police. 3. Reserve Inspectors. 4. Reserve Sub Inspectors Office of the Director General of Police, Madras. 5. abolished 6. Head Constables including Band Head Constables Office of the Director General of Police, Madras and Reserve Head Constables including Armourers, Signallers and Motor Transport Drivers. 7. Constables including Band Constables, Office of the Director General of Police, Madras, Reserve Constable, Buglers and Bellow Boys." 12. Rule 3 (a) (i) prescribes that appointment to several classes and categories shall be made as indicated in Annexure-I. Rule 11 stipulates that the selection for appointment of Sub Inspectors by direct recruitment shall be made by the T.N.U.S.R.B. It also prescribes the communal rotation to be adopted while making such appointments. Rule 3 (a) (i) prescribes that appointment to several classes and categories shall be made as indicated in Annexure-I. Rule 11 stipulates that the selection for appointment of Sub Inspectors by direct recruitment shall be made by the T.N.U.S.R.B. It also prescribes the communal rotation to be adopted while making such appointments. Rule 12 relates to selection and appointment of Reserve Sub Inspectors. Akin to Rule 11, Rule 12 also prescribes that the selection of Reserve Sub Inspectors should be made by T.N.U.S.R.B and that the communal rotation shall apply. 13. Rule 14-B reads as follows:- "14-B(1) On recruitment a Police Constable shall join in an Armed Police Battalion. He shall be imparted with a rigorous training which will suit the needs of both the Armed Police outdoor duties and the contrasting duties of Taluk Police. The emphasis shall be on good public relations. He shall be specially trained in responding to the needs of the common man as detailed below:- .(a) to impart knowledge of law with special emphasis on constitutional rights of citizens. .(b) to give both the critical and practical knowledge about the functioning of Police units, especially Police Station and Outposts. .(c) to teach the scientific methods of investigation. .(d) to bring about qualitative change in the outlook of Police Constables to maintain good Police – Public relationship. .(e) to develop their leadership qualities to command and control any unit under their charge. .(f) to improve their talents in sports and other extra curricular activities. .(g) to mould them into first rate citizens and models for others to emulate. .(ii) After such training the Police Constable shall serve in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion for the first three years. Thereafter he shall be transferred to District Armed Reserve where he shall serve for a period of not less than one year, after which he shall be transferred to Taluk Police establishment." Thus, in so far as Constables are concerned, the first appointment appears to be, to the TSP, from where a person is posted to Armed Reserve and then to the Taluk Police, by virtue of Rule 14-B. But unfortunately, there is no similar provision with regard to Sub Inspectors. 14. Rule 18 (a) deals with the training to be given to probationers and the pay admissible to them. 14. Rule 18 (a) deals with the training to be given to probationers and the pay admissible to them. The said rule relating to Sub Inspectors, Reserve Sub Inspectors and Constables requires reproduction and hence it is extracted as follows:- "18(a) Probationers who have to undergo training and their pay: Probationers shall undergo training and examination as follows within the period of their probation and their pay during the period shall be as indicated below:- TABLE A probationer shall have two chances for passing the examinations one at the end of the course and the second six months hence. Provided that the Director General of Police, may for adequate reasons to be recorded in writing allow a probationer a third chance to pass the examination. (The deficiency in the period of training of a fresh probationer appointed in the place of a first recruit within three months after the opening of the College shall be disregarded) TABLE .15. Rule 25 deals with seniority. Sub Rule (b) of Rule 25 makes it clear that the transfer of a person from one class or category of the service, to another class or category of the service carrying the same scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter class or category of post. This Rule 25 (b) reads as follows:- ."(b) The transfer of a person from one class or category of the service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority and the seniority of a person so transferred, shall be determined with reference to the rank in the class or category from which he was transferred. Where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying this sub rule seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority." 16. Rule 32 which deals with transfers and postings contains no restrictions for posting a person from one category of post to another carrying the same scale of pay. 17. The Annexure-I under Rule 3 (a) prescribes the methods of appointment and the appointing authorities for each category of post. It was amended by G.O.Ms.No.1532, Home Department, dated 7. 1988 with effect from 111. 17. The Annexure-I under Rule 3 (a) prescribes the methods of appointment and the appointing authorities for each category of post. It was amended by G.O.Ms.No.1532, Home Department, dated 7. 1988 with effect from 111. 1974, to the effect that Reserve Sub Inspectors of Police in the Armed Reserve shall also be eligible for appointment to the posts of Sub Inspectors (Taluk Police) by transfer, within the 60% quota reserved for direct recruitment. It is seen from Annexure-I that the method of appointment of Sub Inspectors of Police (meaning Sub Inspectors of Police (Taluk Police)) is either by promotion from among Head Constables or by direct recruitment or transfer from any other class or category or recruitment by transfer from any other service (as amended by G.O.Ms.No.2635, Home (Pol.III) Department, dated 29. 1986). Annexure-I prescribes similar methods of recruitment in common for (i) Head Constables and Reserve Head Constables and (ii) Constables and Reserve Constables. .18. While the Inspectors, Sub Inspectors and Constables, both in the Taluk Police and in the Armed Reserve, are governed by the same set of rules viz., the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, the Inspectors, Sub Inspectors and Constables of Tamil Nadu Special Police are governed by the Special Rules for Tamil .Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service, 1978. 19. From the two sets of Special Rules, one governing the posts of Sub Inspector (Taluk Police) and Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) and another governing the post of Sub Inspector (TSP), it is seen that the posts are actually equivalent in status. While the posts of Sub Inspector (Taluk Police) and Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) belong to categories 2 and 4 respectively of Class I of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, the post of Sub Inspector (TSP) belongs to Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service. But all of them admittedly carry the same scale of pay and the next avenue of promotion to all of them is the post of Inspector. The method of appointment to each of these posts under the respective rules, include transfer from any other category or service. The seniority of such person transferred from one category to another or from one service to another, is also protected by Rule 25 (b), which I have extracted earlier. If a person cannot be appointed from one category to another, Rule 25 (b) has no place and would be redundant. The seniority of such person transferred from one category to another or from one service to another, is also protected by Rule 25 (b), which I have extracted earlier. If a person cannot be appointed from one category to another, Rule 25 (b) has no place and would be redundant. Direct recruitment to all these posts are through the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board through a common recruitment drive. The Notification for appointment itself establishes this and one post is not shown to be inferior in status to the other. 20. While the position with regard to the status of these three categories of posts, under the statutory rules, is as above mentioned, the respondents appear to have messed up the whole issue. It is seen from a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in A.D. Sakkaravarthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, dated 13. 2004 in W.P.No.9515 of 2000, that the Government filed a counter contending that these three categories of posts were not interchangeable. Paragraph-3 of the said decision containing an extract of the counter filed by the respondents, reads as follows:- "3. The respondents have filed counter. The contents of the counter is as follows:- "The Sub Inspectors of Police are appointed in three categories: 1) Taluk Police, 2) Armed Reserve, 3) Tamil Nadu Special Police. The Sub Inspector of Police in Taluk Police and Armed Reserve are governed by the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu police subordinate service rules, 1953. The Sub Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Special Police is governed by the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Special police Subordinate service rules, 1978. There is no provision in Tamil Nadu police subordinate service rules for transferring the Sub Inspector of Police from one category to another category. Thus, all the three categories are not interchangeable. The line of promotion is also different." On the basis of the above counter, the Division Bench held in paragraph-9 as follows:- "9. As per the service rules, the three categories of Sub Inspectors of Police have their own line of promotional prospects to the post of Inspector of Police in the case of Category. In other words, the candidates were selected for the post of Sub Inspectors of Police in the Police Force comprising three wings having separate service rules, training procedures and duties and responsibilities. In other words, the candidates were selected for the post of Sub Inspectors of Police in the Police Force comprising three wings having separate service rules, training procedures and duties and responsibilities. Their posting to the ratio based on the marks secured by them during the selection process not by following the Single Point Entry System." 21. The above case arose out of a claim made by a person who was selected for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve). He filed an application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Sub Inspector in Taluk Police on the basis of seniority. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal and he filed a writ petition before this Court. The respondents filed a counter in the said writ petition contending that all the above three categories of posts are governed by separate set of rules and that they are not interchangeable. But nevertheless in paragraph-6 of the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court recorded the fact that in the transfer of Sub Inspectors of Police in Armed Reserve and in TSP to Taluk Police, there are stipulated conditions, though it is not automatic. Thus the fact that a person can be transferred from one category to the other was recognized even in the said decision. 22. Interestingly, the above Division Bench decision was rendered in March 2004. The very same respondents had passed several orders, transferring persons from AR/TSP to Taluk Police, right from 1996, inspite of which, they took such a stand before the Division Bench. The details of such orders are as follows:- (a) Way back in the year 1996, the Government examined the question of transfer of Sub Inspectors of Police in Armed Reserve and TSP to Taluk Police, to enable them to work in Regular Law and Order Wing also. Thereafter an order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.1512, Home (Police III) Department, dated 10. 1996, directing that the Sub Inspectors of Police AR/TSP shall be transferred to Taluk Police as a one time measure subject to certain conditions. Following the said order, necessary amendments to the Special Rules were also issued under G.O.Ms.No.525, Home (Police III) Department, dated 4. 1997. Thereafter an order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.1512, Home (Police III) Department, dated 10. 1996, directing that the Sub Inspectors of Police AR/TSP shall be transferred to Taluk Police as a one time measure subject to certain conditions. Following the said order, necessary amendments to the Special Rules were also issued under G.O.Ms.No.525, Home (Police III) Department, dated 4. 1997. The amendments so made were to the following effect:- .(i) that such transferees from AR/TSP to Taluk Police need not undergo probation in the transferred post if they have already completed their probation; .(ii) that such transferees will take seniority in the category of Sub Inspectors (Taluk Police) below the direct recruits of the year in which they were transferred. There was also an amendment with regard to the conditions to be satisfied for the purpose of such transfer. .(b) Subsequently, the Government issued an order, on the basis of the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Police Commission, in G.O.Ms.No.1598, Home (Police III) Department, dated 11. 1997, reserving 10% of the vacancies under the direct recruitment quota (for the post of Sub Inspectors Taluk Police) for being filled up by the Sub Inspectors of Police AR/TSP. By the said order, 10% of the vacancies under the direct recruitment quota was carved out for being filled up by transfer. .(c) In the year 2003, an order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.446, Home (Police III) Department, dated 25. 2003, directing that about 503 directly recruited Sub Inspectors of Police (AR) and Sub Inspectors of Police (TSP) of the 1994-1995 batch be appointed as Sub Inspectors of Police (Taluk Police) by transfer/recruitment by transfer against the direct recruitment vacancies of the year 2002, subject to certain conditions. The seniority of such transferees was directed to be fixed with reference to Rule 25 (b). Consequently, an amendment to the Rules was also issued under G.O.Ms.No.1268, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 11. 2004. Interestingly, one of the amendments made under the said order was the insertion of sub rule (g) below Rule 32 (2) (f). By the said newly introduced sub rule, Sub Inspectors of Police (Taluk Police) were directed to be sent on other duty to serve AR/TSP for one month by rotation, for the purpose of filling up the vacancies caused due to the en mass transfer of 503 persons from AR/TSP to Taluk Police. The other amendments related to the procedure. By the said newly introduced sub rule, Sub Inspectors of Police (Taluk Police) were directed to be sent on other duty to serve AR/TSP for one month by rotation, for the purpose of filling up the vacancies caused due to the en mass transfer of 503 persons from AR/TSP to Taluk Police. The other amendments related to the procedure. Following the aforesaid amendment, a Selection Committee was constituted and the eligible candidates who fulfilled the conditions were sent for practical training in the Districts. Subsequently, posting orders were also issued on 20.10.2005. The posting orders actually referred to the posting of such transferees as conversion and not reversion. Even as recently as in 2007, the Government appointed 120 Sub Inspectors of Police TSP in Taluk Police under G.O.Ms.No.1164, Home (Police III) Department, dated 8. 2007. 23. The word "reduction" or "reversion" is not defined in the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. It is not defined even in the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. The Fundamental Rules of the Government of Tamil Nadu also do not define the word "reduction" or "reversion". But the words "promotion" and "transfer" are defined under Rule 2 (13) and Rule 2 (15A) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services as follows:- "(13) Promotion" means the appointment of a member of any category or grade of service or class of service to a higher category or grade of such service or class." "15A. Transfer:-A member of a service is said to be appointed by transfer when the appointment is made from one category to another category in the same service carrying identical scale of pay." 24. Transfer:-A member of a service is said to be appointed by transfer when the appointment is made from one category to another category in the same service carrying identical scale of pay." 24. Even the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services defines the expression "recruited by transfer" under Rule 1(11) as follows:- "(11) Recruitment by transfer – A candidate is said to be recruited by transfer to the service:- .(a) If at the time of his first appointment thereto, he is either a full member or an approved probationer in the Tamil Nadu High Court Service or in any other service the rules for which prescribe a period of probation for members thereof; or .(b) In case, at the time of his first appointment thereto, is the holder of a post which has been included in another service but, for which no probation has been prescribed, if he has put in that post satisfactory service for which no probation has been prescribed, if he has put in that post satisfactory service for a total period of two years within a continuous period of three years. Explanation: Where these rules provide for recruitment to the service to any class or category, thereof by transfer from any specified service, class or category a candidate need not for the purposes of such recruitment, be a full member or an approved probationer in the service, class or category so specified, provided he is a full member or an approved probationer in any other service, class or category." 25. Going by the definitions of the words "promotion" and "transfer", one can only conclude that the posting of a person from one category to another, carrying the same scale of pay, can be termed only as a transfer and not reduction or reversion. There are several factors, which determine the equation of status of various categories of posts. One of those factors is the pay scale of the posts concerned. In E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu { (1974) 4 SCC 3 }, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that equal pay will by itself, not be the sole decisive factor on the equation of status and responsibility of the post. But it was nevertheless held in paragraph-22 of the said decision that "pay scale will primarily show status and responsibilities of equal nature". But it was nevertheless held in paragraph-22 of the said decision that "pay scale will primarily show status and responsibilities of equal nature". The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners agreed that posting a person from TSP to AR/Local Police or posting a person from AR to Local Police is not promotion. If posting a person from Taluk Police to AR/TSP is a reversion or reduction, then the posting of a person from AR/TSP to Local Police should be considered to be promotion. But admittedly, it is not so. Therefore the stand taken by the petitioners that the revision of allotment orders would amount to reversion or reduction in rank is not statutorily borne out to be correct. Both under the Fundamental Rules and under the Special Rules, appointment by transfer from one category to another or from one service to another service is permitted. If it is not permissible, Rule 14-B of the Special Rules cannot have a place, where under the Constables get appointed first to TSP and then get posted to AR and later to Taluk Police. Similarly, Annexure-I to the Special Rules also gives an indication about the permissibility of such transfer. 26. Though the petitioners admit that the scales of pay of all the three categories of posts are the same, they contend that they are governed by separate sets of rules and their promotional prospects and duties and responsibilities are different. But there are ever so many posts in each service, class and category, which carry different duties and responsibilities, depending upon the place or office in which the post is allocated. A Tahsildar posted in a Taluk Office to discharge the duties of a regular Tahsildar, has onerous duties and responsibilities, including powers exerciseable by him as Executive Magistrate. But when he is posted for land acquisition, he exercises different powers and discharges a completely different set of duties and responsibilities. Examples of this nature galore in Government Service and hence the nature of duties and responsibilities cannot also be the sole criteria to determine if the posting of a person to a particular category amounts to reversion or reduction in rank. In so far as the adverse effect on promotional prospects is concerned, the Supreme Court has already held in Anil Kumar Vitthal Shete and Others Vs. In so far as the adverse effect on promotional prospects is concerned, the Supreme Court has already held in Anil Kumar Vitthal Shete and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra {2006 (4) MLJ 1851} that "chances of promotion is not a condition of service and that the reduction of chances of promotion would not amount to change in condition of service". .27. The petitioners admit that the scales of pay of the three categories of posts (Sub Inspectors in Taluk Police, Armed Reserve and Special Police) are just the same and their source of direct recruitment is through the same agency namely the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. The direct recruitment to all the three categories, always takes place through a common process. The Notification for recruitment does not spell out the number of posts in each category. The Notification also does not call upon the candidates to indicate any choice or preference of the category to which they apply. In recruitment to Group-I Services of the State of Tamil Nadu, the applicants are directed to indicate their choice to the various categories of posts and services such as Deputy Collectors, Deputy Superintendent of Police etc., though a common selection takes place. But in the case of direct recruitment of Sub Inspectors, the Notification does not provide the candidates with a choice. The Notification merely states that the allotment to the three categories of posts would be on the basis of the marks, after applying the rule of communal rotation. Therefore, the petitioners are actually persons who have applied for consideration to any of the three categories of posts, in response to the Notification. The petitioners have not applied, making a specific choice of the category to which their names are to be considered. .Therefore the petitioners cannot really contend that their allotment to one category and the subsequent revision of such allotment, violated any of their vested rights. Since the categories of posts are also of equal pay and status, the petitioners cannot even term the revision of allotment as reversion or reduction of category. .28. The only point that the petitioners can validly advance is that the respondents are bound by the Notification and make allotments on the basis of the marks obtained, after applying the communal rotation. .28. The only point that the petitioners can validly advance is that the respondents are bound by the Notification and make allotments on the basis of the marks obtained, after applying the communal rotation. Such an argument will not be on the basis that there was reversion nor on the basis that there was any infringement of a vested right. It will be simply based upon the commitment made in the Notification and the commitment of the respondent to act fairly. Therefore the impugned show cause notices will have to be tested only on the said principle. But before the impugned show cause notices are tested on the said principle, it is necessary to deal with the contentions raised by Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. .FIRST CONTENTION: 29. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents are bound by the stand taken in the first batch of writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates, that everything was well with the selection process. Therefore according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the attempt to revise the allotment orders on the basis that there were some discrepancies, would amount to approbating and reprobating and would also amount to taking this Court for a ride. 30. In support of his contention, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to paragraph-3 of the judgment of K. Venkataraman, J., in W.P.No.14482 of 2007 batch of cases dated 20.11.2007, wherein the counter affidavit of the respondents was extracted. In paragraph-3(d) and (g), of the said decision, rendered in the batch of cases filed by the unsuccessful candidates, the learned Judge had extracted the relevant portions of the counter affidavit of the respondents as follows:- "(d) The communal rotations as per the orders in force have been correctly followed in the selection and the reservation for each community including for the wards of the police personnel has been duly taken into account." "(g) Quota allotted for each of the categories has been strictly followed. In fact, after the direction by this Court, the selection list was published indicating each category and hence, there cannot be any grievance on the part of the petitioners." After extracting the counter affidavit in paragraph-3 of the decision and after projecting the grievance of the petitioners in paragraph-6, the learned Judge went on to discuss the issues one after another in paragraph-7. Paragraph-7(G)(1) of the decision shows that the learned Judge instructed the Special Government Pleader to publish the selection list specifying each category and quota and that it was also complied with. Therefore while rejecting all the contentions of the writ petitioners and recording his conclusions in paragraph-9 of the judgment, the learned Judge recorded in paragraph-9 (c) as follows:- "(c) The grievance of the petitioners that the publication of selected candidates under each category or quota was not done, can no more be a grievance, since after filing of the writ petitions, the Recruitment Board has published the result of the selection candidates on each quota." By pointing out the above, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents cannot now take a different stand. 31. However I am unable to countenance the said submission for two reasons, which are as follows:- .(i) The above decision arose out of a dispute raised by the candidates who were unsuccessful in the selection. The defence taken by the respondents in the said case about the proper adherence to the selection process and the communal rotation was with reference to the challenge by the unsuccessful candidates. Therefore the said defence cannot operate as estoppel against the respondents even for revising the allotment made inter se among the successful candidates. .(ii) In any event, this contention (that the respondents were bound by the earlier stand) was available to the petitioners, when they themselves came up with a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.11181 of 2008, challenging the revised allotment orders issued by the Director General of Police and other authorities. Fortunately for the petitioners, their batch of writ petitions W.P.Nos.11181 of 2008 etc., also came up before the very same learned Judge who dismissed the batch of cases filed by the unsuccessful candidates. Therefore without going into any other issue, the revised allotment orders could have been set aside on the sole basis that the respondents were bound by the earlier stand. Therefore without going into any other issue, the revised allotment orders could have been set aside on the sole basis that the respondents were bound by the earlier stand. But the learned Judge did not allow the writ petitions of the petitioners herein on that basis. The learned Judge allowed the writ petitions of the petitioners and set aside the revised allotment orders only on two technical grounds viz., (i) that no notice was issued in accordance with the principles of natural justice and (ii) that Government alone was competent under Rule 5 of the Special Rules to revise the allotment orders. In other words, the first contention now raised by the petitioners that the respondents cannot revise the allotment orders in view of the stand earlier taken by them, was either not raised or raised and deemed to have been rejected by the very same learned Judge who allowed their writ petitions and set aside the revised allotment orders only on two technical grounds. Therefore I am unable to accept the first contention of the petitioners. SECOND CONTENTION: 32. The second contention of the petitioners is that under Rule 5, the Government is empowered only to revise the list of approved candidates, but not the list of appointed candidates. This contention is based upon the language employed in Rule 5 and the definition of the words "appointed to the service" and "approved candidate". 33. Rule 5 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service reads as follows:- "5. This contention is based upon the language employed in Rule 5 and the definition of the words "appointed to the service" and "approved candidate". 33. Rule 5 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service reads as follows:- "5. Revision of list of approved candidates for appointment or promotion: Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the State Government shall have power to revise in any manner they consider suitable, any list of approved candidates, for appointment or promotion to any category or class of the service prepared by the Head of the Department, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by these rules." The phrase "appointed to the service" is defined under Rule 1 (1) as follows:- "(1) Appointed to the Service a person is said to be Appointed to the Service when in accordance with these rules or in accordance with the rules applicable at the time, as the case may be, he discharges for the first time the duties of a post borne on the cadre of the service or commences the probation, instruction or training prescribed for members thereof." The phrase "approved candidate" is defined under Rule 1 (2) as follows:- "(2) Approved Candidate – Approved candidate means a candidate whose name appears in an authoritative list of candidates approved for appointment to any class or category of the service. Explanation: The inclusion of a candidates name in any such list shall not confer on him any claim to appointment to the class or category of the service." The phrase "member of the service" is defined under Rule 1 (8) as follows:- "(8) Member of the Service – Member of the Service means a person who has been appointed to the service and who has not retired or resigned, been removed or dismissed, been substantively transferred or reduced to another service or been discharged otherwise than for want of a vacancy. He may be a probationer, an approved probationer or a full member of the service." 34. It is true that the names of the petitioners were found in a list of candidates selected for appointment by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. Once the said list was approved for appointment, the list became a list of "approved candidates". He may be a probationer, an approved probationer or a full member of the service." 34. It is true that the names of the petitioners were found in a list of candidates selected for appointment by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. Once the said list was approved for appointment, the list became a list of "approved candidates". But by virtue of the Explanation to Rule 1 (2), the inclusion of a candidates name in any such list, did not confer on him any claim to appointment to the class or category of the service. However, the moment a person is appointed, from the list of approved candidates, he acquires certain rights. But it does not mean that once the list of approved candidates is operated and appointments made, the Government loses its control over such a list administratively. 35. All that Rule 5 says is that the State Government shall have the power to revise in any manner they consider suitable, any list of approved candidates prepared by the Head of the Department. In other words, Rule 5 confers superintending and supervening powers upon the Government to revise any list of approved candidates, irrespective of the fact that it was prepared by a competent authority viz., the Head of the Department. It is needless to point out that Government is not the appointing authority for many posts. There are different authorities competent to prepare a list of approved candidates for appointment to various posts, under Rule 4 (a) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, either by direct recruitment or by promotion or by recruitment by transfer. Rule 5 of the Special Rules makes it clear that the Government has the ultimate power to revise any list of approved candidates, prepared by any of the competent authorities including the Head of the Department. 36. Rule 5 is only the reservoir of power for the State Government. It does not in any manner prescribe any restraint of time for the Government to invoke the power. In other words, Rule 5 does not contain a restriction that the power thereunder shall be used only before appointments are made from out of the list of approved candidates and not thereafter. It does not in any manner prescribe any restraint of time for the Government to invoke the power. In other words, Rule 5 does not contain a restriction that the power thereunder shall be used only before appointments are made from out of the list of approved candidates and not thereafter. There is nothing in Rule 5 to indicate that the power of the Government to revise the list of approved candidates lapses, the moment appointments are made out of the list. If such an interpretation is given, the list of approved candidates prepared by the Head of the Department, cannot at all be revised by the Government, if appointments were made by the Head of the Department in pursuance of the approved list. Such an interpretation would destroy the very power under Rule 5, as there would always be a time gap between the approval of a list of candidates for appointment by the Head of the Department and the appointments made out of the list on the one hand and the notice taken by the Government of such appointments on the other hand. Therefore I cannot accept the argument that Rule 5 cannot be invoked after appointments are made from out of the list of approved candidates. The list of approved candidates is the cause and the appointments made from out of the same, is the consequence. The power under Rule 5 would continue to be available to the Government, even after appointments are made from out of the list of approved candidates. Once the power is exercised, the appointment orders issued earlier would undergo a change. THIRD CONTENTION: 37. The third contention of the petitioners is that the impugned show cause notices disclose no material to enable the petitioners to show cause. The show cause notices are in cyclostyled format, containing a vague statement that there were discrepancies in the application of communal rotation while making allotments. Therefore the petitioners contend that there is nothing for them to show cause against such a vague statement. 38. Though there is an element of justifiability in the above contention of the petitioners, it is not something which would make the impugned show cause notices totally bad and liable to be set aside. Therefore the petitioners contend that there is nothing for them to show cause against such a vague statement. 38. Though there is an element of justifiability in the above contention of the petitioners, it is not something which would make the impugned show cause notices totally bad and liable to be set aside. As admitted by the petitioners and as seen from the decision rendered in the first batch of cases filed by the unsuccessful candidates, the selection list has already been published categorywise. Therefore the petitioners know or are supposed to know the roaster point against which they are selected and they also know the cut off marks secured by them. Hence the problem now posed by the petitioners can easily be resolved by directing the Government to publish a provisional revised list, before considering the objections of the petitioners and before issuing final revised list. 39. As stated earlier, the only point that the petitioners can validly make out against the proposed revision of allotment is that the respondents are bound to make allotment on the basis of the marks, subject to the rule of reservation, as committed in the Notification for recruitment. This is both on the basis that the respondents are bound by the Notification and also on the basis of fairness and equality of treatment. The marks obtained by each of the selected candidates, is already made known to them. The selected candidates know the community to which they belong. It is only an application of a combination of these two factors to the list of selected candidates that remains to be done, so that the commitment made in the Notification is fulfilled. 40. In one of the affidavits filed by the respondents in support of a vacate stay petition, it is stated by the respondents that the allotment made to 255 Sub Inspectors, required a revision in view of the discrepancy in applying the rule of communal rotation under Rule 22 of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. In other words, the marks secured by the petitioners are not proposed to be revised. What is sought to be undone, is a mistake in the allotment of some of them, in violation of the rule of reservation. In other words, the marks secured by the petitioners are not proposed to be revised. What is sought to be undone, is a mistake in the allotment of some of them, in violation of the rule of reservation. If a person who has secured a particular cut off mark was eligible only for allotment to Armed Reserve or TSP, on the basis of the rule of reservation, but had been allotted to Taluk Police, then the mistake can certainly be rectified. So long as the purpose of the present exercise is to place the selected candidates in the appropriate positions that they deserve, as per the cut off mark and rule of reservation, the exercise cannot be found fault with. To ensure that this is the purpose of the present exercise, the respondents can be directed to publish the revised list provisionally in the respective places where all candidates are now undergoing training. As already pointed out, the final list of approved candidates is based only upon three variables viz., (i) the marks obtained by each candidate (ii) the community to which the candidate belongs and (iii) the roaster point. The first two variables are already known to the selected candidates, in so far as their individual selves are concerned. The roaster point is actually as per Rule 22 of the General Rules. But the selected candidates may not know the marks and the community of the other selected candidates and hence if this is made known, it will ensure transparency and adherence to the Notification. CONCLUSION: 41. In the light of the above discussions, the challenge to the impugned show cause notices fails and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. However certain directions require to be issued, to ensure that the revision of allotment is as per the marks and the communal rotation, as enunciated in the Notification for recruitment. 42. Therefore all the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- .(a) The Government is directed to publish, within a week, a provisional consolidated revised list of allotment of candidates, in the respective places in which the candidates are undergoing training, furnishing details of all the selected candidates such as (i) name (ii) community (iii) marks obtained (iv) the allotment already made (v) the allotment proposed to be made either to Taluk Police or Armed Reserve or TSP and (vi) the communal roaster point. (b) Within one week of the publication of the above provisional revised list, the petitioners as well as any person aggrieved by the placement in the provisional list, may file their objections with the Government. .(c) The Government may thereafter pass appropriate orders, after considering the objections of the petitioners and others, either confirming the provisional revised list or modifying or withdrawing the same. .(d) As we have seen in paragraph-22 above, the Government have passed a series of orders from the year 1996, transferring Sub Inspectors from Armed Reserve to Taluk Police. Such transfers had taken place en mass, on representations received from the employees. Every time such transfers were ordered, an amendment to the rules followed. This shows that there is always a clamour for posting in Taluk Police. This is not new to the Police Department. Experience shows that there are posts in every Department, such as Enforcement Wing and Check Posts in Commercial Taxes Department, regular postings in Taluk Offices in Revenue Department, posting of teachers in the hostels in Adi Dravida Welfare Department, etc., which are much sought after. But the reasons for the same are distressing to note. Taking note of the craving of the employees for such "plum postings" (as they are known in the Executive Circles) and the underlying motive, those Departments such as Commercial Taxes Department, Revenue Department and Adi Dravida Welfare Department, have incorporated provisions in their special rules, which provide for such posting by rotation. If the same pattern is followed even in the Police Department, such problems as the one on hand, may not arise in future. The respondents may take note of the same, to avoid future disputes. 43. All the writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.