G.R. Swaminathan, J.

1. The appellant was a candidate, who applied in response to the notification issued by the third respondent calling for applications for filing up the posts of Grade-II Police Constable, Grade-II Jail Warder and Firemen and Armed Reserve Men Constable for the year 2017. The appellant's father served as a Ministerial Staff in the Police Department who retired from service on 31.03.2016. The appellant wanted to be considered under the 10% quota meant for wards/Dependents. The appellant applied to the 5th respondent for issuance of wards/dependents certificate. Since the issuance of the said certificate was delayed, he applied under the general category. The appellant took part in the written examination as well as the physical tests. He scored 61 marks. This was below the cut off marks prescribed for the general category. Had the petitioner been issued with the ward/dependents certificate, he would have been selected against the 10% quota.

2. He therefore, moved the authorities again. By the impugned memorandum dated 16.02.2017, the appellant was informed that since his father had already retired and cannot be considered as a serving ministerial staff, it would not be possible to issue the certificate sought for by him. The stand of the department is that as per Rule 12 of TNPSS Rules 1953 and Rule 7(b) TNSPSS rules 1978 only ward/dependent of serving/retired/deceased or medically invalidated Police Personnel and ward/dependent of serving ministerial staff or Police department are eligible to apply under the ward/dependent quota. Since the father of the appellant is a retired ministerial staff, he would come under the said quota.

3. Questioning the said stand of the department, the appellant herein filed W.P.(MD)No.16909 of 2017. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 07.09.2017 on the ground of delay and laches. Contending that the appellant was not at fault and that the issue must be decided on merits, this intra Court appeal came to be filed.

4. When the Writ Appeal came up for admission, the Bench took the view that the provision under which the appellant claimed benefit itself appeared to be unconstitutional. Therefore, the Bench decided to consider the validity of the 10% reservation provided for the ward/dependents of Police Personnel and the ministerial staff of the Police Department. In order to enable the State to justify the said reservation Rule, notice was issued to the State Government. This order was passed on 13.09.2017. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on at least four occasions. Finally, the Government filed its Counter Affidavit on 14.02.2018.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

6. The contention of the learned AAG appearing for the respondents was that the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in the inaugural address at the conference of the Police officers on 01.08.2001 indicated that a quota of 10% in the vacancies in the Police/Special Police Subordinate Services would be provided for the wards/dependents of the Police Personnel and the ministerial staff in order to boost the morale and strengthen its loyalty to the Force. Pursuant to the aforesaid assurance G.O.Ms.No.834, Home (Police III) Department dated 10.09.2001 was issued providing for the said quota in the following terms:

“10% quota under direct recruitment for dependents of the serving police personnel and the wards/dependents of retired, deceased and medically invalidated police personnel.”

7. There was a subsequent amendment and the following proviso was added:

“Provided that 10% of the above 10% quota shall be filled up from among the dependents of the serving Ministerial staff”.

8. The learned Additional Advocate General also pointed out that communal reservation as per Rule 22 was also being scrupulously followed. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 1495, he contended that