Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2046 (MAD)

The State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Alagumalai

2015-04-28

S.MANIKUMAR, V.M.VELUMANI

body2015
Judgment :- V.M. Velumani, J. Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 07.4.2014, made in W.P.(MD).No.15121 of 2012. 2. Writ petition was filed by the first respondent to quash the impugned proceedings bearing R.C.No.51080/NGB.1(1)/2012, dated 19.11.2012, issued by the second appellant and consequently to direct the second appellant to publish the “C” list on the basis of the seniority of the Sub-Inspectors of Police eligible for promotion, to the post of Inspectors. 3. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 07.4.2014. Against the said order, the present appeal is filed by the appellants. 4. The first respondent was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 01.10.1975. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1996 and subsequently, as Sub-Inspector of Police on 05.8.2004 after conducting the Board test. According to the first respondent, as per PSO 38 of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders, the Superintendent of Police will prepare and submit annually to the Deputy Inspector General, a list of Sub-Inspectors of Police in order of seniority, who are to be considered for promotion to the rank of Inspectors. After scrutinising the recommendations, the same will be submitted to the second appellant office by 1st November of every year. The said list will be placed before the State Promotion Board for consideration. The recommendation of the State Board will be finally placed before the Director General of Police, Chennai, the second appellant herein, who will approve suitable persons in the 'C' list for promotion. 5. The first respondent's name was recommended by third appellant. The State Promotion Board and the second appellant considered the first respondent for promotion. The second appellant by his proceedings bearing RC No.51080/NGB.1(1)/2012 dated 19.11.2012 placed the name of the first respondent in the impugned 'C' list at serial No.60. According to first respondent, his juniors were placed above him. This is contrary to PSO 38 of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders. Therefore, he has filed the above writ petition, namely, W.P.(MD)No.15121 of 2012. 6. The appellants have filed detailed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the first respondent. The appellants denied in the counter filed in the writ petition that no person, junior to the first respondent was placed above him. According to the appellants, seniority up to the rank of Head Constable would be based on District/City Unit promotion. 6. The appellants have filed detailed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the first respondent. The appellants denied in the counter filed in the writ petition that no person, junior to the first respondent was placed above him. According to the appellants, seniority up to the rank of Head Constable would be based on District/City Unit promotion. Promotion from Head Constable to Sub Inspector of Police is on range basis. The seniority in the Sub Inspector of Police cadre will be based on the rank in the test conducted for promotion from Head Constables to Sub-Inspectors of Police. This procedure is in terms of rule 35 and 36 of General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. As per this procedure, the first respondent's rank in 'C' list for promotion to the post of Inspector was fixed at S.L.No.64 which is proper and valid. 7. The inter-se-seniority among the Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 2012 of different Ranges/Cities, is fixed in terms of Rule 35 and 36 of General Rules of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Services. Finally, appellants have stated that by allotment order Rc.No.178742/'C' List/NGB V(2)/2012, dated 22.07.2013, four persons, who were petitioners in W.P.Nos.15120, 15122, 15123 of 2012 and 565 of 2013 were issued allotment orders. The appellants therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the first respondent retired on 30.6.2013 and the allotment order was issued only on 22.7.2013. On the date of allotment order issued on 22.07.2013, the first respondent was not in service. 8. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that similarly placed persons, who were petitioners in W.P.Nos.15120, 15122, 15123 of 2012 and 565 of 2013 were issued allotment orders and the first respondent also is entitled to the same reliefs. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Judge failed to consider that inter-se-seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police from different Ranges/Cities has been fixed based on the 'C' list of Head Constable (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) of each Range/Cities irrespective of the date of promotion as Head Constable. As per this procedure contemplated by Rule 38 PSO of Police Standing Orders, the first respondent was fixed at Sl.No.64 in the 'C' list of persons fit for promotion as Inspectors. 10. As per this procedure contemplated by Rule 38 PSO of Police Standing Orders, the first respondent was fixed at Sl.No.64 in the 'C' list of persons fit for promotion as Inspectors. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that there is no infirmity in the 'C' list for promotion. Originally, in the 'C' list 74 persons were included. But, only 40 persons were promoted and remaining 34 persons were not promoted due to want of vacancies. The first respondent retired on 30.6.2013 and no junior was promoted before 30.6.2013. The first appellant created 31 posts of Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) after 30.6.2013 and that is why allotment order was issued on 22.7.2013. The post of Inspector is a selection post and the first respondent has a only right to be considered for promotion as Inspector of Police, but, he has no right to be promoted as Inspector of Police automatically, based on his seniority. The selection post is based on merit cum seniority and only when merit is equal, the seniority will be taken into account. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that his juniors in the post of Head Constables and Sub-Inspector of Police were included in the 'C' list for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police above him contrary to Rule 38 PSO of Police Standing Orders. The learned Judge has rightly appreciated the fact and allowed the writ petition and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal. 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions put forth by either side and perused the materials on record. 13. The learned Judge has allowed the writ petition only on the ground that similarly placed persons, who also filed W.P.Nos.15120, 15122, 15123 of 2012 and 565 of 2013 were issued allotment order dated 22.7.2013. From the materials, it is seen that the first respondent retired on 30.6.2013. The allotment to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15120, 15122, 15123 of 2012 and 565 of 2013 were issued only on 22.7.2013 after the retirement of first respondent. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as on 30.6.2013, when the first respondent retired only 40 persons out of 74 persons were included in 'C' list were promoted. The other 34 persons including first respondent were not promoted due to want of vacancy. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as on 30.6.2013, when the first respondent retired only 40 persons out of 74 persons were included in 'C' list were promoted. The other 34 persons including first respondent were not promoted due to want of vacancy. No junior to the first respondent was promoted before 30.6.2013. The first appellant created further 31 posts of Inspector of Police. In view of creation of such additional posts, the petitioners in other writ petitions, who were in service as on 22.7.2013 were issued allotment order. The preparation of seniority list is as per rule PSO 38 of Police Standing Orders. When admittedly, no junior to the first respondent was promoted before 30.6.2013, the first respondent is not entitled to promotion, after his retirement. 15. In the result, the impugned order dated 07.4.2014, made in W.P.(MD) No.15121 of 2012, is set aside and the appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 is closed.