Judgment :- 1. A batch consisting of 17 writ petitions have been filed seeking issuance of a writ of declaration declaring that the Range Promotion Board conducted by the respondents in Chennai City Police for drawal of ‘C’ list of Head Constables (Local) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspectors of Police (Local) for the year 2004 as null and void and further direct the respondents to convene a fresh Range Promotion Board for preparation of ‘C’ list of Head Constables fit for promotion as sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2004 for Chennai City. 2. (i)Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15374, 19606, 20350, 20377, 26699, 32595, 38721, 14796, 32731, 16234 of 2005, 5746, 8669 of 2006 (twelve writ petitions) submitted that the writ petitioners who joined the service as Grade II Police Constables, after promotion to Grade I Police Constable, were further promoted as Head Constables. In pursuant to a memorandum dated 3.1.2005 issued by the second respondent-Director General of Police, Chennai directing the Range DIGs Commissioner of Polices to convene a Range Promotion Board for the preparation of ‘C’ list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspectors of Police for the vacancies of the year 2004, as per the rule, the post of Sub-Inspector, that is in Class-I, Category-II in the Special Rules for Police Subordinate Service, are to be filled in by appointing any eligible Head Constables who have completed four years of service either permanent or officiating and those who have not completed 53 years of age and have good working knowledge in English are eligible to participate in the Range Promotion Board. Therefore, the said Range Promotion Board was commenced and the 152 vacancies have been notified for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (local) under the promotee quota as on 10.4.2004. The 4th respondent being the Chairman of the Range Promotion Board, in view of the direction issued by the 3rd respondent, Commissioner of Police, issued a memorandum on 2.2.2005 calling upon the eligible candidates to participate in the Range Promotion Board and they must have minimum service of four years in the category of Head Constable with the total service of seven years and working knowledge in English to participate in the test. Pursuant to the memorandum issued by the third respondent dated 2.2.2005 calling upon the eligible candidates to participate in the Range Promotion Board, all the names of the writ petitioners were included in the list. As a result, the petitioners have participated in the Range Promotion Board. (ii)The first grievance submitted before this Court by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is when the memorandum dated 3.1.2005 issued by the Director-General of Police, Chennai has fixed programmes for conducting the test and drawal of ‘C’ list which are as follows: Publication of list of eligible candidates 02.02.2005 Written Test at Range Headquarters07-02-2005 Drill Test at Range Headquarters 09.02.2005 Viva-Voce at Range Headquarters 10.02.2005 Preparation of Recommendation Rolls by the RPB 14.02.2005 Finalisationof Select List by The Range DIGS/COPs 16.02.2005 Publication of list of Candidates selected for pre-promotional training 18.02.2005 paragraph20 of the same memorandum mentioned the cut-off mark, for those who have secured not less than 40 percent of the total marks (that is 12 out of 30 marks) in the written test alone should be called for Drill Test and Viva-voce examination. But the above memorandum dated 3.1.2005 was not put to notice to them. As a result, the petitioners were not aware of the cut-off mark for written test. Without being aware of the mark to be secured in the written test, all of them participated in the written test conducted on 7.2.2005. Thereafter, none of the petitioners heard any information from the respondents 3 and 4 in respect of the written test and there was no drill test or viva-voce and in the meanwhile, the respondents 3 and 4 published a list of 86 persons out of 152 vacancies who have been selected and included in the ‘C’ list based on the written test conducted on 7.2.2005. Subsequently, the above 86 persons said to have been passed in the written test, have been directly included in the ‘C’ list and promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police even without undergoing the subsequent stages of selection, namely, drill test and viva-voce. Therefore, it was contended that when Respondents 3 and 4 published a list of 86 persons, out of 152 persons, on the basis of their selection in the written test it is not known, whether they have passed the drill test and viva-voce. Therefore, it was contended that when Respondents 3 and 4 published a list of 86 persons, out of 152 persons, on the basis of their selection in the written test it is not known, whether they have passed the drill test and viva-voce. Whileso, they have been included in the ‘C’ list and promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police. Therefore, the learned senior counsel further argued that promotion of 86 persons included in the ‘C’ list is highly arbitrary and not in accordance with the service rules, therefore, the notification and the entire selection are to be scrapped by this Court. (iii) He added that after some time, the third respondent issued a call letter dated 10.3.2005 caling upon the petitioners and others to participate in another Range Promotion Board convened on the basis of the memorandum dated 3.3.2005 issued by the second respondent directing the petitioner to appear for another written test, drill test and viva-voce. In the said memorandum the 4th respondent prescribed minimum 40% marks for eligible to the next stage of their selection. Therefore, the petitioners were under the bonafide impression that the second test was continuation of the earlier test. On that basis, they have participated in the test without prejudice to their right of challenging the same and have come out successful in the written test. Subsequently, when they have secured high marks in comparison with the persons whose names have been included in the first ‘C’ list dated 18.2.2005, strangely, their names were not included in the second ‘C’ list consisting of 66 names, therefore, the entire ‘C’ list for 155 vacancies prepared by the respondents 3 and 4 is highly arbitrary and based on procedures unknown to law. (iv) The learned senior counsel has further added that every year only one Range Promotion Board has to be conducted and even if there is a shortage, another Range Promotion Board cannot be conducted as per the service rules. As the respondents have no power to order for second Range Promotion Board to be conducted for the same year without amending the rules, the action of the respondent in conducting the second Range Promotion Board by memorandum dated 10.3.2005 for the remaining vacancies in Chennai City, namely, 66 vacancies is highly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the service rules. As the respondents have no power to order for second Range Promotion Board to be conducted for the same year without amending the rules, the action of the respondent in conducting the second Range Promotion Board by memorandum dated 10.3.2005 for the remaining vacancies in Chennai City, namely, 66 vacancies is highly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the service rules. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel has mentioned that during 1997-98 when the Range Promotion Boards were conducted for number of vacancies on the ground that less number of persons have come out successful in the written test, the very same respondents reduced the cut-off marks for the written test. On that basis, more number of persons who had already written the examinations were considered and promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police. When that was the practice followed earlier, after selecting 86 candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police out of 152 candidates, instead of going for the second Range Promotion test, they should have reduced the cut-off mark, so that by a single written test, the ‘C’ list could have been prepared. As they have conducted the second written test, the splitting of ‘C’ list for selection is impermissible under law. If at all the respondents wanted to convene Range Promotion Board, they should have obtained the permission of the Government or amended the Special Rules for Police Subordinate Service enabling the department to convene a second Range Promotion Board. As they have not sought permission of the first respondent nor amended the rule to convene the second Range Promotion Board, the second ‘C’ list published is liable to be set aside. (v) Finally, the learned senior counsel added that a large number of persons included in the ‘C’ list are disqualified persons. But out of the disqualified persons like HC 7268-Mohankumar, HC7045-Elangovan, HC-6979-Ravi and other persons posted as Telephone Orderly, have been shown in the ‘C’ list and who were already working in the special units under the control of the higher officers have been selected ignoring the meritorious service of the petitioners who were working in the Crime as well as Law and Order enjoying meritorious service. Since the post of Sub-Inspector is a selection post and the selected officer is going to be a station house officer, he has to be an efficient and honest person, but instead of searching good experienced, meritorious persons, the second ‘C’ list has contained disqualified persons. Therefore, the entire ‘C’ list is liable to be set aside. 3. Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.22026/2005 adopting the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.32731/2005, added on his side to declare the Range Promotion Board as null and void by stating that the memorandum issued by the respondents 2 and 3 based on the recommendation of Director General of Police dated 2.2.2005 is arbitrary and discriminatory, because the memorandum dated 10.3.2005 directing to convene the second Range Promotion Board is violation of the Police service rules. The learned counsel further added that the memorandum dated 10.3.2005 is in violation of Rule 4 of the General Rules which clearly says that a penal is to be prepared for one Calender for promotion. Therefore, conducting Range Promotion Board for the second time for vacancies already notified is illegal and violation of General Rules. Therefore, it was argued that when 87 persons who passed the written test did not undergo the subsequent stage of selection, namely, the drill test and viva-voce, but they have been further promoted as Sub-Inspectors, such an approach of promoting 87 persons to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, merely on their pass in the written test, goes to show that the second Range Promotion Board is convened only to suit a few individuals who are working in the special unit. Further there is no uniformity in awarding marks for the oral test and drill test. On this basis, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the writ petition. 4. (i) Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.C.Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.13178/2005 submitted that the Memorandum dated 10.3.2005 has allocated 100 marks for selection of Sub-Inspector of Police, out of 100 marks, 30 marks has been allotted for the written test, 10 marks for parade, 10 marks for interview, 30 marks for ACR, 10 marks for rewards, 10 marks for clean record of service. Whileso, unfortunately, in the memorandum, they have incorporated a clause that unless a person secures 40% of the marks in the written test, he will not be called for drill test and viva-voce test. Such kind of method of selection is illegal, arbitrary and without justification. While submitting his arguments, the learned senior counsel has pleaded that when 100 marks are given for selection, after allotting 30 marks for the written test, they determined the candidate with only 70 marks by cutting off/excluding 30 marks allotted for the written test and such an approach is legally not sustainable. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527 (RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS V. SHAKTI RAJ AND OTHERS) to submit that the select list should have been prepared on the basis of the total marks secured in the written examination and under other items in accordance with the rules unlike in the present case without fixing the cut-off marks to be secured by the candidates in the written examination as it is arbitrary and unwarranted. (ii) The learned senior counsel further argued that the clause 20 in the memorandum dated 3.1.2005 imposing a condition that unless a person secures 40% in the written test, he will not be allowed to participate in the other tests is also arbitrary, illegal and liable to be struck down. 5. Ms.S.Jothivani, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.39987, 34347/2005 adopted the arguments of the learned senior counsel. 6. Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned Additional Advocate General-I assisted by Mr.S.V.Doraisolaimalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 in all the writ petitions has submitted that there is no legal impediment under Rule 3 (b)(ii) (b) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service to convene second Range Promotion Board. 6. Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned Additional Advocate General-I assisted by Mr.S.V.Doraisolaimalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 in all the writ petitions has submitted that there is no legal impediment under Rule 3 (b)(ii) (b) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service to convene second Range Promotion Board. By producing the letter addressed by the Secretary to Government to the Director-General of Police, Chennai-4 bearing Lr.No.101806/Pol.III/2002-8 dated 5.3.2004, he stated that when the Director General of Police sent a proposal to Government for amending Rule 3(d) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service so as to incorporate an enabling provision to the authorities concerned, to conduct separate Range Promotion Board tests for those who were not permitted to participate in the original Range Promotion Board tests on the grounds of pending charges etc., but later acquitted of the charges, on careful consideration of the said proposal the Government informed the Director General of Police, Chennai stating in clear terms that there is no need to amend the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, as there is no restriction under Rule 3(b)(ii)(b) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service to convene Range Promotion Board more than once in a panel year. 7.(i) The abovesaid submission of the learned Additional Advocate General finds force inasmuch as when there is an exigency arising, the authorities concerned is allowed to convene Range Promotion Board to testify the individual/individuals as per the rules to decide his/their suitability for inclusion in the ‘C’ test. When Rule 3(b)(ii)(b) of the Special Rule for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service does not prohibit the Official Respondents to hold second Range Promotion Board, the same is held valid. (ii) Nextly, it is mentioned that as directed by the Director General of Police in his memorandum dated 3.1.2005, the said Range Promotion Board for 2004 was convened to select 152 Sub-Inspectors of Police including 18 vacancies. The director of Police in their memorandum dated 3.1.2005 has given several conditions to select a suitable Head Constables fit for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. They are 1. Must have got working knowledge in English 2. Must not have completed 53 years of age on the first day of July 2005 3. Must have completed the total service of seven years 4. They are 1. Must have got working knowledge in English 2. Must not have completed 53 years of age on the first day of July 2005 3. Must have completed the total service of seven years 4. Must have served as Head Constable whether permanent or officiating for a period of not less than four years as on 1.7.2005. The said memorandum also says that the persons will be admitted in the written test held in the central place in the range. Clauses 2 and 21 are relevant to be extracted hereunder to answer the prayer and the arguments advanced by the respective counsels. "20. Those who have secured not less than 40 percent of the total marks (that is 12 out of 30 marks) in the Written test alone should be called for Drill Test and Viva-voce examination. 21. As per the directions of the Honourable Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1392 and 1550 of 1990, 50 per cent of the total marks should be allotted to past performance. The First Bench consisting of the Honourable Chairman and the Honourable Administrative member of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in their orders dated 13.11.1995 and made in O.A.Nos.1565, etc, of 1995 (Batchof 102 cases) held as follows: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and on the law position, we are clear that the allocation of marks for the above tests as per the D.G.P's memorandum dated 26.12.91 with regard to the Range Promotion Board, proposed to be held in that year, which is 30% for the written test and 10 marks each for drill test and viva-voce test would be the correct allocation of marks." Therefore the marks for the promotion tests shall be allocated as follows: I. WRITTEN TEST 30 II. DRILL TEST 10 III. VIVA-VOCE 10 IV. PAST PERFORMANCE 50 A) 30 marks for assessment of Pfs can be given based on the grading in ACRs viz outstanding, very good, good, above average and average. Accordingly, marks can be given as follows, for the ACRs from the date of promotion as HC and till the year in which Range Promotion Board is conducted. Out standing 10 Very good 8 50 Good 6 Satisfactory/Above Average 4 Average 2 (i) Then the average marks can be assessed from total ACRs. (ii) The average marks obtained may be multiplied by 3(Three) and allotted to the individual. Out standing 10 Very good 8 50 Good 6 Satisfactory/Above Average 4 Average 2 (i) Then the average marks can be assessed from total ACRs. (ii) The average marks obtained may be multiplied by 3(Three) and allotted to the individual. Any rate of the total mark should not be exceed 30(Thirty) marks for ACR. b) For clean D.sheet(the period from the date of promotion as HC alone should be taken into account. For every minor punishment one mark should be deducted and for every major punishment 2 marks should be deducted, all subject to maximum of 10) c) Rewards 10 upto 100=5 marks; 101 and above = 10 marks 10 Total 100 It should be borne in mind that the First Bench of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in their orders in O.A.No.2176 of 1991, etc, (Batch) has observed that the assessment of the record has to be a comprehensive qualitative one based on an appraisal of the performance of the candidate during his period of service as Head Constable. Therefore, the Range Promotion Board should make an appraisal of the performance of the each individual taking into account all relevant material relating to his work and conduct. A mere reading of the above clause 21 says that 30 marks in the written test and 10 marks each for drill test and viva-voce test have been allocated only on the basis of the directions issued by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1392 and 1550 of 1990, because as per the direction 50% of the total marks should be allocated to the past performance. The first Bench consisted of the Chairman and the Administrative Member of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, while disposing of the said O.A.Nos.1392 and 1550 of 1990 in the order dated 13.11.1995 made in O.A.No.1565 etc of 1995, a batch of 102 cases, have already upheld the allocation of 30 marks for the written test, 10 marks each for drill test and viva-voce test. Only on the basis of the First Bench of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, the circular dated 3.1.2005 was prepared. Only on the basis of the First Bench of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, the circular dated 3.1.2005 was prepared. Therefore, when the memo/circular dated 3.1.2005 issued by the Director General of Police has rightly prepared clause 21 on the basis of the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in the above mentioned O.A., which held that allocation of 30% for written test, 10 marks each for drill test and viva-voce test is the correct allocation of marks, I do not find any irregularities in the allocation of marks. (iii) Further, the judgment of the Apex Court in RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS V. SHAKTI RAJ AND OTHERS reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527 relied on by the learned senior counsel to say that a select list should have been prepared on the basis of the total marks secured in the written test is distinguishable to the case on hand. For the reason given in the abovementioned case before the Supreme Court, the Selection Committee had evolved a criteria to award marks to the selected candidates by allocating 25 marks rationalized to be given out of the said quota. In the written examination 25 marks was awarded, for sports 5 marks, for experience 10 marks, for extra-curricular activities 5 marks, for viva-voce 30 marks totaling 100 marks. But, unfortunately, the Selection Committee, instead of awarding marks out of the maximum marks awarded to a particular test, has awarded the marks in lumpsum. In these circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the prescription of marks for those items is perfectly valid and legal but cutting off the marks actually secured by the candidates in the common written examination is arbitrary and unwarranted. But that is not the issue involved in the present case. As I have mentioned, when the memorandum was prepared, they have proceeded only on the basis of the direction given by the first Bench of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1392 and 1550 of 1990. When the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal has already held in a batch of Original Applications consists of 102 cases that 30 marks for the written test and 10 marks each for the drill test and viva-voce test would be the correct allocation of marks, the arguments to the contrary do not carry any merits. When the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal has already held in a batch of Original Applications consists of 102 cases that 30 marks for the written test and 10 marks each for the drill test and viva-voce test would be the correct allocation of marks, the arguments to the contrary do not carry any merits. (iv) Again with regard to cut-off marks, this aspect has been fortified by a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. S.VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS (2007 (8) SCC page 100) wherein it has been held that the competent authority has got all power to fix the cut-off marks. Therefore, the power of the employer to fix the cut-off marks cannot be denied. So, when I found that the respondent has got power to fix up the cut-off marks, the necessary corollary would be, no exception thereto can be taken because the Court while exercising its power of judicial review should not ordinarily intermeddle therewith, for, the jurisdiction of this Court in this behalf is limited. In this context, it is useful to refer the relevant portion from the said judgment which is extracted hereunder: “Once it is held that the appellants had the requisite jurisdiction to fix the cut-off marks, the necessary corollary thereof would be that it could not be directed to lower the same. It is trite that it is for the employer or the expert body to determine the cut-off marks. The court while exercising its power of judicial review would not ordinarily intermeddle therewith. The jurisdiction of the court, in this behalf, is limited. The cut-of marks fixed will depend upon the importance of the subject for the post in question. It is permissible to fix different cut-off marks for different categories of candidates ( See Banking Service Recruitment Board v. V.Ramalingam). 18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. 19. It is permissible to fix different cut-off marks for different categories of candidates ( See Banking Service Recruitment Board v. V.Ramalingam). 18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. 19. “it is in this perspective in Om Prakash Shukla V. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla a three-Judge Bench of this Court laid down in no uncertain terms that when a candidate appears at the examination without protest and subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, question of entertaining a petition challenging the said examination would not arise.” It was further observed:(SCC p.149, para 34) “34.There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppels by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not ‘palatable’ to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.” (v) One more point which needs emphasis is when this Court has granted interim injunction on 3.5.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.16801/2005 in W.P.No.15374/2005. In W.V.M.P.No.1409/2005 the respondents have filed vacate stay petition and the injunction already granted was vacated. A portion of observation made by this Court in the said order vacating the injunction is extracted hereunder: “In this context, I wish to note that Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, himself would state that as far the first select list of 86 candidates is concerned, there may not be any legal grievance. A portion of observation made by this Court in the said order vacating the injunction is extracted hereunder: “In this context, I wish to note that Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, himself would state that as far the first select list of 86 candidates is concerned, there may not be any legal grievance. But, his grievance is in respect of the other 66 selected candidates pursuant to the notification dated 4.3.2005, which notification itself is in challenge in the writ petition.” “Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners would contend that the recruitment of 66 police constables as Sub-Inspector of Police pursuant to the notification challenged in this writ petition itself is impermissible as per the recruitment rules and taking that alone into account, this Court was inclined to grant an interim order earlier.” Therefore, when Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned senior counsel has already made it clear before this Court that as far as the first select list of 86 candidates is concerned, there may not be any legal grievance and his grievance in respect of other 66 candidates pursuant to the notification dated 4.3.2005 alone is contended as impermissible in law, this Court concerns only with selection of 66 selected candidates pursuant to the notification dated 4.3.2005. since all these 66 persons have been selected on the basis of the allocation of marks following the directions issued by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners cannot challenge the second ‘C’ list. (vi) In respect of handicapped HC 7268-Mohankumar, HC 6979-Ravi and HC 7045-Elangovan the respondents have filed additional counter stating that Mohanraj has participated in the drill test and he was awarded two marks out of 3 for turn out, 1 = marks out of 3 for word of command, 1 = out of 4 for performance. Similarly, HC7045-K.Elangovan was also awarded 2 marks for turn out, 1 mark for word of command, 1.5 marks for performance. In respect of HC 5269-Shanmugam, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that he has attended the written test and also participated in the drill test and obtained 17 marks in written test and 6.50 marks in the drill test. Therefore, the allegation that he has not attended the written test is false. In respect of HC 5269-Shanmugam, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that he has attended the written test and also participated in the drill test and obtained 17 marks in written test and 6.50 marks in the drill test. Therefore, the allegation that he has not attended the written test is false. (vii) Ultimately, it must be reiterated that the present argument regarding allocation of 30 marks for the written test as done by the Department, cannot be appreciated by this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the sole and simple reason that such allocation was done strictly in consonance with the mandate of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal vide its order passed in O.A. No.2176 of 1991 etc. Batch. In view of the settled legal position that, it may not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with alike proceedings as the nucleus from which the impugned memorandum emanated was not based on any self-made formula drawn by the Department but only in strict adherence to the clear direction issued by the Tribunal regarding allocation of marks and the same not having been challenged ever by the individuals, any endeavor by this Court for interference would only amount to setting at naught the order passed by the Tribunal in a collateral proceedings and therefore, such course is absolutely impermissible under law. 8. In view of the reasons above mentioned, I do not find any merit in all these writ petitions, accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected pending Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.