Selection not to be done zone wise.

Common Order: F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

The Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.17639 to 17660 of 2001, 17822 to 17826, 17827 to 17830 18349 to 18356 and 17899 to 17903 OF 2003 have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal directed that the applicants in the Original Applications before it, who appeared for selection as Sub-Inspectors of Police from open market should be selected and appointed as Sub-Inspectors of police if they fulfill the other requirements of satisfaction of antecedents etc., and in respect of certain other applicants who appeared for selection, while serving in the Department as Police Constables and Head Constables should be selected and appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police in the same manner. As regards the applicant in O.A.No.10161 of 1998, the Tribunal held that the tests including Physical Efficiency Test should be conducted within a period of three months from the date of its order, namely, 19-7-2001 and if that applicant secures the cut off marks or above, he should also be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police within three months thereafter.

2. In W.P.Nos.32253 to 32255, 32499, 33135, 33136 22344, 22015, 23063, 34275 of 2004 etc., some unsuccessful candidates who participated in the selection of Sub-Inspectors of Police in the year 1997-1998, came forward with these Writ Petitions claiming very same relief which has been granted by the State Administrate Tribunal which are covered by the Writ Petitions Nos.17639 of 2001, etc. preferred by the State Government. That apart, the original applications which were pending on the file of the State Administrative Tribunal, in which, similar relief has been claimed by certain other unsuccessful candidates were transferred to the file of this Court inasmuch as the State Administrative Tribunal has not been posted with the Presiding Officer and since the claims are identical as that of the claims made in the earlier original applications.

3. Initially the Writ Petitions filed by the State Government-petitioners were taken up for hearing on 20-08-2004. After hearing the learned Advocate General for some time, and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the contesting respondents that certain mal-practices had taken place in the matter of selection which had resulted in the selection of certain candidates who really did not qualify in the selection process and that certain other candidates failed to get selected because of certain alterations made in the marks originally sanctioned to them, we felt it appropriate to direct the writ petitioners-State Government to make a wide publication of the pendency of the Writ Petition in respect of District quarters by publishing notices in the different ranges in order to enable such of those successful candidates who intend to have their say in these proceedings.

4. Thereafter, when the Writ Petitions were posted for hearing on 29-10-2004, Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel represented that he is representing some of the successful candidates who got selected in 1997-1998 selection and thus those selected candidates were also represented by counsel. Finally the Writ Petitions were heard on 3-12-2004, 17-12-2004 and 9-2-2005.

5. While the learned Advocate General addressed arguments on behalf of the Writ Petitioners-State Government and the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, M/s.G.Masilamani, K.Chandru, and M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel and M/s.V.Ramasubramaniam and K.Venkata Ramani, argued on behalf of the respective contesting respondents.

6. Mr.T.L.Ramamohan, learned senior counsel appeared on behalf of some of the selected candidates represented by Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel appearing for those impleaded respondents.

7. In order to appreciate the scope of controversy involved in these Writ Petitions as well as the Or