Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2444
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.NISHA BANU, JJ.
The Director General of Police and Ors - Appellant
Versus
Muthupillai - Respondent
W.A. (MD) No.1172 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.7525 of 2016
Decided on : 24-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Muthal Raj
Promotion is not solely based on seniority but depends on merit and suitability. Delays in promotions should not penalize employees without fault.
Headnote:
Promotion - Sub-Inspector of Police - Rc.No.276060/NGB.IV(1)/2004 - State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin AIR 1987 SC 1889 - Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman AIR 1991 SC 2010 - State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin AIR 1987 SC 1889 - Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910 - Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and others v. Union of India and others JT 1996 (4) S.C. 731
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/writ petitioner sought promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police but was initially excluded due to pending disciplinary proceedings. After being allowed to participate, he failed to qualify in the written test and subsequent tests. The court directed the authorities to consider the respondent/writ petitioner for promotion, but he still did not qualify. The Single Bench set aside the order directing promotion, which was appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent/writ petitioner was not entitled to promotion as he did not qualify in the selection process. The court also emphasized the importance of considering merit and suitability for promotion, as well as the impact of delays on promotions.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility and entitlement of the respondent/writ petitioner for promotion, the impact of pending disciplinary proceedings on promotion, and the authority's obligation to consider merit and suitability for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that promotion is not a matter of right solely based on seniority, but depends on merit and suitability. It also emphasized that delays in promotions should not penalize employees without fault. The court's decision was based on the respondent/writ petitioner's failure to qualify in the selection process and the importance of considering merit for promotion.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order directing promotion of the respondent/writ petitioner was set aside.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 03.07.2014, passed by the learned Single Bench allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent [hereinafter referred to as the "respondent/writ petitioner"], being W.P(MD)No.11261 of 2009 and setting aside the order dated 13.06.2008, impugned therein.
2. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Bench, has, in effect, directed the appellants to give the respondent/writ petitioner all the benefits of promotion against vacancies in the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police as on 31st July 2004 and fix his seniority accordingly.
3. The respondent/writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Grade II Police Constable on 14th November 1977. The respondent/writ petitioner was upgraded as Grade I Police Constable on 22nd July 1994 and promoted as Head Constable on 22nd July 1999. The next promotion post for the respondent/writ petitioner was the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.
4. Pursuant to a Memorandum being Rc.No.276060/NGB.IV(1)/2004, dated 03.01.2005 of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, the Range Promotion Board was constituted to fill up 10 vacancies in the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police, as on 1st July 2004.
5. According to the appellants, Head Constables, who had completed total service of seven years and service of not less than four years as Head Constable, were eligible to be considered for promotion by the Range Promotion Board.
6. It is stated that 745 Head Constables participated in the proceedings before the Range Promotion Board on 7th February 2005 and appeared for the Written Test. The respondent/writ petitioner was not called to participate in the proceedings before the Range Promotion Board, in view of an enquiry pending against him for alleged assault of one Ganesan on 30th June 2004, in course of investigation, while the respondent/writ petitioner was posted at Soorankudi Police Station. A criminal case being Crime No.103 of 2004 had also been registered against the respondent/writ petitioner along with two others at Soorankudi Police Station.
7. Out of 745 candidates, who had participated on 7th February 2005, only 8 candidates were found fit for promotion and were promoted. The last promoted candidate secured 43.70 marks.
8. According to the appellants, pursuant to the orders of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, an Additional Range Promotion Board was convened on 20th March 2005 to fill up the remaining two posts. 706 candidates participated in the proceedings before the Additional Range Promotion Board.
9. On consideration of a representation made by the respondent/writ petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, the respondent/writ petitioner was permitted to participate in the proceedings before the Additional Range Promotion Board on 20th March 2005.
10. According to the appellants, the respondent/writ petitioner appeared in the written test and secured 11.50 marks out of 30. Since the respondent/writ petitioner had not been able to secure the minimum pass mark of 12, he could not appear for the Drill Test and the Viva Voce.
11. In the meanwhile, the respondent/writ petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P(MD)No.1704 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 19th December 2007.
12. The records reveal that the affidavit in support of the writ petition seeking orders on the appellants to participate in the proceedings before the Additional Range Promotion Board, was affirmed in February 2005, that is, before the date of the Written Test on 20th March 2005. By the time the writ petition was disposed of, all the ten posts had been filled up.
13. Be that as it may, the writ petition was allowed by the said order dated 19th December 2007 and the appellants were directed to give the respondent/writ petitioner an opportunity to appear for the Drill Test and Viva Voce and to consider him for appointment, if he succeeded in the test.
14. According to the appellants, the Co
