The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Government has the power to revise any list of approved candidates, and show cause notices must contain sufficient material enabling effective representations.

Common Order:

The petitioners in all these cases have come up with a challenge to the show cause notices issued to them by the first respondent, seeking to revise their allotment from Taluk Police to Armed Reserve or from Armed Reserve to Tamil Nadu Special Police for appointment.

2. I have heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these writ petitions and Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents in all these writ petitions.

3. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board issued a Notification for recruitment of Men/Women Sub Inspectors of Police in the year 2006. By the Notification, 445 posts of Men Sub Inspectors of Police and 72 posts of Women Sub Inspectors of Police were sought to be filled up, out of which 20% of the vacancies were reserved for departmental candidates. The Notification was a common Notification for filling up the posts of Sub Inspectors to Taluk Police, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police. However the Notification also indicated that the allotment of selected candidates to Taluk Police, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police (TSP) would be made on the basis of the marks secured and that the rule of reservation for various communities would be applied as per the existing provisions.

4. All the petitioners were already in service in the Police Department and all of them appeared for selection under the 20% quota reserved for departmental candidates. All of them were declared selected and they were also sent for training, either as Sub Inspectors of Police (Taluk Police) or as Sub Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve).

5. A group of unselected candidates filed a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.14482 of 2007 etc., contending that the written examination was not conducted properly and that the viva voce was actually manipulated. All the writ petitions were dismissed by an order dated 20.11.2007 holding that the written test was conducted in a proper manner. The unsuccessful candidates challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions before the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1598 to 1602 of 2007 batch of cases. The Division Bench also dismissed the Writ Appeals by an order dated 23. 2008. The Special Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court were also dismissed on 110. 2008, thereby putting a seal of approval on the selection.

6. In the meantime, the respondents issued certain proceedings seeking to change the allotment of some of the selected candidates from Taluk Police to Armed Reserve or from Armed Reserve to Tamil Nadu Special Police (TSP). Challenging those revised allotments, the petitioners herein as well as a few others, filed a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.11181 of 2008 etc. Those writ petitions were allowed by a common order dated 7. 2008 primarily on two grounds viz., (i) that the allotment from Taluk Police to Armed Reserve amounted to reversion or reduction to a lower category and hence cannot be ordered without notice and (ii) that under Rules 5 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, 1953, the State Government alone was competent to issue revised allotment orders to the list of approved candidates.

.7. Consequent upon the above decision dated 7. 2008 rendered in the batch of cases W.P.No.11181 of 2008 etc., the State Government issued show cause notices dated 12. 2008 to the petitioners herein, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why their allotment shall not be changed either from Taluk Police to Armed Reserve or from Armed Reserve to T.S.P. Challenging these show cause notices, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petitions.

8. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned show cause notices on the following grounds viz.:-

.(a) The respondents took a positive stand in the counter affidavits filed in the batch of cases filed by the unsuccessful candidates challenging the selection that