Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3476
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
M. Venkatesan & Another
Versus
Director-General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another
Writ Petition Nos.13584 & 13585 of 2007, (O.A.Nos.1795 and 1796 of 2003)
Decided on : 02-08-2011
For the Petitioner:M. Ravi Shanmugam for M/s. Sudha Ravi Associates, Advocates. For the Respondents:S. Gunasekaran, Govt. Advocate.
Temporary service as Head Constables should be considered as officiating service under Rule 3(d)(iii) of the Special Rules for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police.
Headnote:
Temporary Service - Police Subordinate Service - Rule 3(d)(iii) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service - [3(d)(iii)] - The court discussed the issue of whether the temporary service rendered by the petitioners as Head Constables could be counted under Rule 3(d)(iii) of the Special Rules. The court held that the temporary service should be considered as officiating service, and therefore, the impugned orders seeking to delete the names of the petitioners from the 'C' list were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were appointed as Grade II Police Constables and later promoted to Head Constables, were issued show-cause notices to delete their names from the 'C' list for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police due to not having the minimum experience of four years in the feeder category.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the temporary service rendered by the petitioners as Head Constables should be considered as officiating service, and therefore, the impugned orders were set aside. The respondents were directed to grant all service benefits payable to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police to the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the temporary service rendered by the petitioners as Head Constables could be counted under Rule 3(d)(iii) of the Special Rules for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the temporary service should be considered as officiating service, as it fulfilled the requisite qualification for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector, and therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to grant all service benefits payable to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police to the petitioners within eight weeks.
1. The petitioners were appointed as Grade II Police Constables in Armed Reserve, Chennai City, by order dated 25.05.1988. They were promoted as Lance Naiks on 25.3.1993. The petitioner in W.P.No.13585 of 2007 was promoted as Head Constable temporarily and he joined as temporary Head Constable on 1.1.1998. The petitioner in W.P.No.13584 of 2007 was promoted as temporary Head Constable on 30.5.1998. Both the petitioners were regularised as Head Constables with effect from 30.06.1999.
2. The 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 2002 was issued by order dated 29.03.2003. By an order dated 21.02.2003, the Director General of Police issued instructions to convene Range Promotion Board for the drawal of "C" list of Head Constables (AR) fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 2002. The petitioners participated in the selection process that was conducted by the Range Promotion Board. The Commissioner of Police published the 'C' list of Head Constables (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 2002 and the petitioners' name were included in the list at Serial Nos. 21 and 22. The petitioners were promoted as Sub Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) by order dated 31.03.2003 and they joined duty and they are serving at Delhi Police Services.
3. While so, the impugned show-cause notices were issued by the Director General of Police to delete the names of the petitioners from the 'C' list of Head Constables (AR) fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police, for the year 2002. The reason for deletion of the petitioners' name is that they do not have the minimum experience of four years in the feeder category, as Head Constables, either in the officiating capacity or permanent.
4. The petitioners filed O.A.Nos.1795 and 1796 of 2003 to quash the show-cause notices issued by the first respondent. The Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal while admitting the said Original Applications, passed elaborate order granting interim stay.
5. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. In the reply affidavit, it is reiterated that the petitioners did not render four years of service, either permanent or officiating and therefore, they do not come within the zone of consideration to participate in the selection process for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Rule 3(d)(iii) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service is relied on by the respondents for issuing the impugned show-cause notices is extracted hereunder:-
"3(d) In the list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police only men satisfying the following conditions shall be included:-
(i) Must have a good working knowledge of English.
(ii) Must not have completed 53 years of age on the first day of July of the year in which the selection for promotion of Head Constables as Sub Inspectors is held.
(iii) Must have completed a total service of seven years and must have served as Head
Constable whether permanent or officiating for a period of not less than four years on the date of commencement of training."
8. The service rendered by the petitioners as temporary Head Constables was sought to be excluded. The issue is as to whether the petitioners' temporary service as Head Constable could be counted under the Rule 3d(iii) of the Special Rules referred to above. If the service rendered by the petitioners as Head Constables on temporary basis is treated as the service that comes under "officiating service", the impugned orders are not correct in seeking to delete the names of the petitioners from the 'C' list. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Dictionary meaning for the word "officiating" is to mean to act or discharge the duties of an office. While passing the interim orders, the Tribunal has held that the temporary service rende
