Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2898
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
S. Sekar
Versus
The Secretary to Government Home (Police II) Department, Chennai & Another
Writ Petition No.18380 of 2013
Decided on : 14-08-2013
For the Petitioner:K. Venkatramani, Sr.Counsel for M. Muthappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V. Subbiah, Spl. Govt. Pleader.
The court emphasized that promotions cannot be retrospective and that individual cases cannot be compared when seeking relaxation of rules.
Headnote:
Promotion - Sub-Inspector of Police - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules - Rule 39 - G.O.(Ms)No. 349 - G.O.(D) No. 263 - G.O.(D) No. 1423 - G.O.Ms.No. 82 - Regularization of Temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police from 1991, citing relaxation granted to others in similar positions. The Government declined to relax the rules but later passed conflicting orders, granting relaxation to some individuals.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner cannot seek retrospective promotion from 1991 when he was promoted in 2003, and cannot compare himself with those seeking regularization without participating in the selection process.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's request for retrospective promotion and the conflicting government orders regarding relaxation of rules for temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that the petitioner's promotion cannot be retrospective and that his case cannot be compared to those seeking regularization without participating in the selection process.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
1. The petitioner entered the service as Grade-II Police Constable in the District Armed Reserve in Chennai City on 01.08.1984. He was promoted as Head Constable on 12.05.1987. He participated in the range promotion board conducted in the year 1990 for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. However, his name was not included in the 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector for the year 1991.
2. Thereafter, he participated in the range promotion board conducted in the year 2002. His name was included in the 'C' list for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector and he was promoted as Reserve Sub-Inspector on 01.04.2003.
3. Subsequently, his name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Reserve Inspector for the year 2012 and he was promoted on 19.03.2012.
4. According to the petitioner, some of the Head Constables were given temporary promotion as Sub-Inspectors of Police between 1998 and 2003. Such temporary employees filed Original Applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal claiming regularisation of their service as Sub-Inspector of Police without being directed to undergo the selection process i.e, they wanted regularisation as Sub-Inspector of Police without participating in the range promotion Board.
5. Some of the Original Applications were dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 21.04.2004. The Tribunal held that temporary Sub-Inspectors cannot seek regularization of their service as a matter of right, without participating in the selection process.
6. The Tribunal also passed an order dated 09.07.2002 allowing a a batch of Original Applications filed by temporary Sub-Inspector of Police.
7. The unsuccessful temporary Sub-Inspectors as well as the Government filed writ petitions before this Court.
8. The writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful temporary Sub-Inspectors were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on different dates. While dismissing the writ petitions, liberty was given to the Government to exercise its power under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules to relax the condition to participate in the selection process.
9. The writ petitions preferred by the Government against the order dated 09.07.2002 of the Administrative Tribunal in a batch of Original Applications granting direction to regularise the service of the temporary Sub-Inspectors was reversed. While allowing the writ petitions of the Government in W.P.Nos.28775 to 28779 of 2004 on 21.04.2006, the Division Bench granted liberty to the Government to exercise its power under Rule 39 as in other cases.
10. G.Manavalu and 21 others were unsuccessful temporary Sub-Inspectors before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal was confirmed in the order dated 21.04.2006 by the Division Bench in W.P.No.16294 of 2004 batch.
11. One Megakumar, who was also a temporary Sub-Inspector of Police, filed O.A.No.977 of 2003 seeking for regulariation of temporary Sub-Inspector of Police. His OA was also rejected by the Tribunal on 01.06.2004. He preferred writ petition in W.P.No.16765 of 2004. Following the aforesaid order dated 21.04.2006 in W.P.No.16294 of 2004 batch, W.P.No.16765 of 2004 was also disposed of with liberty to the Government to exercise its power under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules and the order of the Tribunal was not interfered with.
12. On 21.04.2006, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.28775 to 28779 of 2004 preferred by the Government against the order dated 09.07.2002 in a batch of OAs was allowed as stated above and the order of the Tribunal issuing direction to regularise the service of temporary Sub-Inspector of Police was reversed.
13. G.Manavalu and 21 others made representation to the Government to exercise its power under Rule 39 of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules and to exempt them from participating in the selection process and also to regularise their service as Sub-Inspector of Police by
