Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1130 (MAD)

P. C. Thangaraj v. State

2012-03-01

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment 1. The petitioner is serving as Additional Superintendent of Police of Prohibition Enforcement Wing at Madurai, who was directly recruited as Sub Inspector of Police in 1976. 2. After selection by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, the petitioner was deputed for training at Police Training College. In terms of Rule 25 of the Special Rules of the Tamilnadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules, the seniority of the Sub Inspector is to be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained in the final examination in the police training College. 3. The rule 25 of the Special Rules of the Tamilnadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules reads as under, "The seniority of a person in any class or category of the service shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Appointing Authority, subject to the Rule of reservation where it applies. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his seniority unless he has been appointed temporarily under sub-rule (d) of Rule 10 or sub-Rule (b) of Rule 15 as the case may be. Provided that, in the case of Sub -Inspectors (recruited direct) (category 2 of class 1), the seniority shall be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the final examination in the Police Training College, Vellore". 4. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.767, Home (Pol. III) dated 28.3.1985 to add proviso to Rule 25, which reads as under:- "Provided further that in respect of direct Recruitment made in the year 1976 and 1979 to the posts of Sub Inspectors of Police and the Reserve Sub Inspectors of Police by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Seniority shall be fixed with reference to the rank assigned by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the list of selected candidates communicated by it. " 5. This proviso though added in the year 1985, was meant for regulating the seniority of Sub Inspectors appointed in the year 1976 and 1979. In view of the proviso, seniority of the petitioner stands changed to 210 from 192 earlier fixed. 6. The Government Order viz., G.O.Ms.767, Home (Pol. III) dated 28.3.1985, was challenged by the affected parties before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal. In view of the proviso, seniority of the petitioner stands changed to 210 from 192 earlier fixed. 6. The Government Order viz., G.O.Ms.767, Home (Pol. III) dated 28.3.1985, was challenged by the affected parties before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal. The application was dismissed. The decision of the Administrative Tribunal was challenged in this Court vide W.P.Nos. 38792 and 38793 of 2003 - S.RAJAMONEY AND S.DURAIRAJ v. THE REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND OTHERS, wherein this Court vide order dated 10th September 2007, quashed the G.O.Ms. No. 767, Home (Pol.III) dated 28.3.1985. 7. Though the decision of the Honourable Division Bench is challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court, but no stay has been granted as the stay application was dismissed, by Honourable Supreme Court. 8. In view of the quashing of the Government Order, and dismissal of the stay application by the Honourable Supreme Court, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to restore the original seniority, but, the respondents instead of giving relief to the parties, treated the judgment to be applicable only to the petitioner. 9. In the normal circumstances, the decision in a case is applicable only to the parties, but not in a case like this where the Honourable Division Bench has quashed the Government Order itself, then there is no justification to apply the added proviso to disturb the seniority list drawn in accordance with the Rules. 10. The case of the petitioner is that the representation filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of. 11. No useful purpose will be served in directing the respondents to decide the representation, in view of the admitted position that the impugned Government Order stands quashed. 12. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. 13. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, and a writ in the nature of mandamus, is issued directing the respondents to restore the seniority of the petitioner to original number i.e. 192, on the basis of merit in the training examination. No costs.