Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1738 (MAD)

K. Nandagopal v. Director General of Police

2013-04-22

S.TAMILVANAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeing an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 08.04.2006 made in RC No.100689/NGB III (2)/2005 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to revise the seniority of the petitioner based on the orders of the Tribunal in RA.No.99/1990 in TA.No.21/1988 dated 04.11.1991 and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he had joined the service as a directly recruited Police Constable on 10.01.1976 in the District Armed Reserve prior to the bifurcation of South Arcot District. He has, further stated that he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable in the year 1995 and was further upgraded as Head Constable in November 1999. According to the petitioner, direct recruitment to the post of Grade-I Police constable was conducted in the year 1973 and 1974 and thereafter, there was no direct recruitment in the said cadre and the department promoted eligible Grade-II Police Constables as Grade I Police Constables by adopting junior and senior promotion and accordingly a Grade-II PC who has completed S.S.L.C. and has served for a minimum period of 5 years is eligible for junior promotion and he was eligible to participate in the test conducted for the preparation of C list of Grade-II PC fit for promotion as Grade-I Police Constable. 3. The petitioner has further stated that so far as senior promotion is concerned, a Grade-II Police Constable who studied upto 8th std. must have completed a minimum service of 10 years to become eligible to be promoted, based on seniority and the vacancies available. According to the petitioner as per adhoc rules for the post of Grade-I Police Constable, no test was conducted for the preparation of C list of Grade-II Police Constables fit for promotion as Grade-I Police Constable and even without prescribing the test, the department was conducting the test on various dates for the preparation of C list. According to the petitioner as per adhoc rules for the post of Grade-I Police Constable, no test was conducted for the preparation of C list of Grade-II Police Constables fit for promotion as Grade-I Police Constable and even without prescribing the test, the department was conducting the test on various dates for the preparation of C list. According to the petitioner, during the year 1980 in South Arcot District, test was conducted for the preparation of C list as Grade-I Police Constables on 23.10.1980 and 24.10.1980 and the petitioner appeared for the written test and other tests and came out successful, hence, his name was included in Sl.No. 19 of the first list. 4. According to the petitioner, following the inclusion of the applicant in the C list, he was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in DO No. 1528/B2 dated 24.07.1982 by the Superintendent of Police, South Arcot District, and however, he was reverted to the post of Grade-II Police Constable again on 23.09.1982, without any valid reason. According to the petitioner, during 1990 the C list which was prepared in 1980 was revised and the name of the petitioner was included in Sl.No. 152 and the C list prepared in the year 1980 was not operated till the petitioner was again promoted as Grade-I Police Constable, as per DO. No. 664/94 dated 31.08.1994. 5. Mr. K. Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the C list that was prepared in DO.369/1981 in C.No.67366/A2/80 for Grade-I Police Constable (under junior promotion) whereby specifically stated the seniority of Grade-II Police Constables, who have passed the Grade-I examination under “Junior Promotion” held in 1980 and he was fixed as per the rank given in the list in Sl.No. 19 and was stated as P.C. 1320, Nandagopal whose date of birth was shown as 25.01.1952 with the date of appointment as 10.01.1976. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that subsequently as per D.O.1859/82 in C.No. 55131/A2/82 dated 23.09.1982, referring the earlier C list and DO.No. 369/81 dated 29.01.1982, the Superintendent of Police, South Arcot District, Cuddalore issued a proceeding whereby Sl.No.152 relates to the petitioner Nandagopal, who joined the service on 10.01.1976 and the police constables who joined the service during 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975, were placed above the petitioner in the rank of seniority. 6. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that after fixation of seniority of the petitioner in the C list in DO. 369/1981, on 2309.1982 in DO. 1859/82, the Superintendent of Police, South Arcot District, again re-fixed the seniority, whereby given priority to the constables, who joined service earlier to the petitioner and changed the seniority of the petitioner from Sl.No. 19 to 152. 7. On the direction given by this Court, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent produced certified copies of the seniority list of Grade-I Police Constables as per DO. 369/1981 in C.No. 67366/A2/80 and also the proceeding of the Superintendent of Police, South Arcot District, Cuddalore in Do. 1859/82 in C.No. 55131/A2/82 dated 23.09.1982 whereby the seniority of the petitioner is stated as 152. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that the earlier list in DO. 369/1981, was not properly drawn according to the date of service as Grade-II Police Constables and even the constables who had joined service in July 1970, were placed below the Grade-II Constables, who joined the service in the year 1976, hence, the anomaly was set right in the proceedings dated 23.09.1982 by the Superintendent of Police, South Arcot District, Cuddalore. 8. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, there is no error in the revised seniority list dated 23.09.1982 and further having extracted the seniority, the petitioner got his promotion as Head Constable during November 1999 and now retired from service on attaining superannuation and according to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, the writ petition itself is not legally maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. 9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his argument contended that earlier there were junior promotion, senior promotion and direct recruitment in the cadre of Grade I Police Constable and the petitioner who had completed S.S.L.C., joined the service on 10.01.1976 as Grade-II Constable, was eligible to get promotion as Grade-I Police Constable, after completing five years service as Grade-II Police Constable, whereas Grade-II Police Constable who passed 8th std. could be considered after completing 10 years of service as Grade-II Police Constable. could be considered after completing 10 years of service as Grade-II Police Constable. He further contended that considering these aspects by DO.369/1981 in C.No.67366/A2/80, the petitioner was given seniority No.19, above some of the Grade-II Constable, who had joined the service during the years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975, prior to the joining of the petitioner in the service. However, without providing reasonable opportunity, the subsequent order dated 23.09.1982 was passed by the Superintendent of Police, South Arcot District, Cuddalore in DO.1859/82 in C.No.55131/A2/82, whereby date of joining of service was taken as criteria and accordingly the petitioner was placed in Sl.No. 152. 10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the procedure followed by the respondent in reversing the seniority is totally erroneous. According to the learned senior counsel, though the petitioner has retired from service, he is entitled to notional promotion and other monetary benefits. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get notional promotion, since he had not challenged the proceedings dated 23.09.1982 whereby he was placed in the seniority list at Sl.No.152 and cannot raise a plea that there was no reasonable opportunity given to the petitioner. 11. There is no satisfactory explanation on the side of the petitioner as to why he had not challenged the revised seniority list in DO. 1859/82 in C.No. 55131/A2/82 dated 23.09.1982 and the petitioner’s allegation to revise the seniority list in DO. 1859/82 in C.No. 55131/A2/82 dated 23.09.1982, which cannot be gone into by a writ court at this stage. The petitioner has stated that on the said seniority list, he was promoted as Head Constable during November 1999 and he continued the service for about 17 years and as Head Constable, he retired from service on attaining superannuation. However, he filed the writ petition in the year 2006, 24 years after the revised seniority for which there is no satisfactory explanation from the petitioner herein. 12. On the aforesaid circumstances, as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, number of other Constables have got promotion as Sub Inspector and Inspectors and also retired from service. It is also an admitted fact that the District was bifurcated subsequently. 12. On the aforesaid circumstances, as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, number of other Constables have got promotion as Sub Inspector and Inspectors and also retired from service. It is also an admitted fact that the District was bifurcated subsequently. On the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to seek notional promotion, at this stage nearly after 24 years. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.