JUDGMENT :

Subramonium Prasad, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18.12.2017 made in W.P.No.32869 of 2017.)

1. The instant writ appeal is directed against the order of the writ Court dated 18.12.2017 made in W.P.No.32869 of 2017.

2. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. Writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.10.2017, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore, Respondent No.3, therein rejecting the representation of the petitioner and four others, for being appointed as Grade-II Police Constable from the post of Bugler Police Constable.

3. The representation was rejected on the ground that the petitioner who was a Bugler Police Constable and he cannot be equated as Grade-II Police Constable. The petitioner in the writ petition has stated that he participated in the selection process conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board in the year 2009 and was selected as a Bugler Police Constable. He was sent for training at Avadi and after finishing the training, he joined as a Bugler Police Constable in Armed Reserve Police Force in Coimbatore City.

4. The Director General of Police sanctioned two Bands viz., (a) State Police band in the Office of the Director General of Police and (b) Tamilnadu Special Police Band in the Regiment Centre at Avadi.

5. It is stated that the selection of Bugler Police Constable in the Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion, was done by the District Superintendents of Police and Commissioners of Police, till the year 1991 and later on, the selection was given to the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board.

6. The petitioner states that Rule 2 Clause (1) Category 7 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1953, defines a Constable as including Band Constables, office of the Director General of Police, Madras, Reserve Constable, Bugler and Bellow boys. It is stated by the petitioner that all the constables stated above are treated as Gr-II Police Constable, for the purpose of payment of salary. It is stated categorically by the petitioner that the post is inter changeable.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no separate distinction between Grade-II Police Constables and other Constables, in as much as their posts are inter changeable. They carry the same scale of pay and they are treated alike in respect of promotion and upgradation. The petitioner states that a Chief office memorandum No.155370/RA.5/80 dated 01.09.1980 prescribes guidelines that after putting five years of service, the Bugler Police Constable is allowed for conversion as Grade - II Police Constable, subject to the condition that they have fulfilled the qualifications. The petitioner states that he made a representation to the 3rd respondent, Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore on 11.03.2017, for seeking conversion to general line as per the chief office circular dated 01.09.1980. The petitioner states that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order.

8. The petitioner states that petitioner’s name has been rejected primarily on the ground that even though Band Police Constable and General Police Constable belong to the same category, they are of different classes in Service Rules and right from the mode of their recruitment, process of training and nature of duties, everything is entirely different.

9. Apart from the office memorandum the petitioner also places reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court dated 08.12.2009 made in WA (MD) Nos.539 to 541 of 2009, supporting the contentions of the petitioner.

10. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged the impugned order contending that

(i) The GO.MS.No.877 Home (Pol IX) Department deals with the age condition, Education qualification, Physical