IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR & V.M. VELUMANI, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Chennai & Others – Appellant
Versus
M. Alagumalai & Another – Respondent
W.A.(MD)No. 313 of 2015 & M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 28-04-2015
Seniority - Promotion - Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders - Rule 35 and 36 of General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules - PSO 38 of Police Standing Orders
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent filed a writ petition to quash the proceedings for promotion to the post of Inspectors, claiming that his juniors were placed above him contrary to PSO 38 of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal, stating that the first respondent was not entitled to promotion after his retirement as no junior was promoted before his retirement.
Issues: Inter-se-seniority for promotion, want of vacancies, and entitlement to promotion after retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The preparation of seniority list is as per rule PSO 38 of Police Standing Orders. The first respondent is not entitled to promotion after his retirement if no junior was promoted before his retirement.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with no costs.
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. 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 appellan
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.