Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. Velumani, J.
P. Rengasamy - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 8575, 11527, 11788, 13872, 13873, 22051, 22052, 26354 & 26355 of 2009 & M.P. No. 1 of 2009
Decided On : 16-10-2019
For the Petitioner:K. Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Narmadha Sampath, Additional Advocate General Assisted by R. Janaki, Additional Government Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the date of selection is the criteria for fixing seniority and not the date of appointment. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to be placed below the persons selected and appointed in 1994-1995 selection as the petitioners were also selected only in the said selection process, and were not appointed and sent for training for no fault of theirs.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Seniority Fixation - Rule 25(a) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 25(a) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No. 1281 Home (Police III) Department dated 22.09.1999 and the impugned order dated 12.02.2009. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to be placed below the persons selected and appointed in 1994-1995 selection as the petitioners were also selected only in the said selection process. The petitioners were not appointed and sent for training for no fault of theirs and therefore they cannot be denied fixation of seniority along with the persons selected during 1994-1995 selection process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were initially appointed as Grade II Police Constables and were selected for appointment as Sub Inspectors of Police for the year 1994-1995. However, they were not appointed and sent for training for no fault of theirs. The petitioners filed Writ Petitions to quash the order dated 12.02.2009 and the portion of G.O. Ms. No.1281 Home (Police III) Department dated 22.09.1999, fixing seniority of the petitioners below 1997-1998 batch and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to re-fix the seniority of the petitioners by placing them below 1994-1995 batch of Sub Inspectors of Police.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were entitled to be placed below the persons selected and appointed in 1994-1995 selection as the petitioners were also selected only in the said selection process. The petitioners were not appointed and sent for training for no fault of theirs and therefore they cannot be denied fixation of seniority along with the persons selected during 1994-1995 selection process.
Issues: The issues included whether the Writ Petitions were liable to be dismissed for delay and latches, whether the Writ Petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata, whether the petitioners could claim seniority based on their selection during 1994-1995 after giving an undertaking that they will not claim such seniority, and whether the petitioners were entitled for fixation of their seniority below their batchmates during 1994-1995 batch.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no delay in filing the Writ Petitions and that the Writ Petitions were not hit by the principles of res judicata. The court also held that the petitioners were not bound by the undertaking given by them and were entitled to agitate their right for revision of seniority along with their batch mates who were selected in the year 1994-1995. Additionally, the court held that the petitioners were entitled to be placed below the persons selected and appointed in 1994-1995 selection as the petitioners were also selected only in the said selection process.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No. 1281 Home (Police III) Department dated 22.09.1999 and the impugned order dated 12.02.2009. No costs were awarded.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent pertaining to the Government Letter No.114014/Police-3/2008-2 dated 12.02.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.1281 dated 22.09.1999 in so far as fixation of seniority below 1997-98 batch and quashed the same and direct the 2nd respondent to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner by placing below 1994-95 batch of Sub Inspectors of Police or at the appropriate place.
1. W.P. No. 8575 of 2009 is filed calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent pertaining to the Government Letter No.114014/Police-3/2008-2 dated 12.02.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.1281 dated 22.09.1999 in so far as fixation of seniority below 1997-98 batch and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner by placing below 1994-95 batch of Sub Inspectors of Police or at the appropriate place.
2. The issue in all the Writ Petitions are interlinked and therefore, they are disposed of by this Common Order.
Case of the Petitioner:
3. All the petitioners were initially appointed as Grade II Police Constables on 25.05.1988 and various dates. On 01.01.1994, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board had notified direct recruitment of 500 Sub Inspectors of Police for the year 1994-1995. The selection was conducted from 21.06.1995 to 26.10.1995. All the petitioners participated in the selection process and they were successful in selection having passed all the test and Police verification. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board selected 1198 candidates. The petitioners were included in the list.
3(a). Initially, 500 persons were appointed as Sub Inspectors of Police and sent for training on 01.03.1996. Subsequently, 600 candidates were appointed as Sub Inspectors of Police and sent for training on 02.06.1997. Remaining 98 selected candidates including the petitioners were not given appointment order and not sent for training. The 1st respondent issued G.O. Ms. No. 1317 Home (Police III Department) dated 08.09.1997 for direct recruitment of 1000 Sub Inspectors of Police for the year 1997-1998. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board conducted recruitment and selected 1000 candidates. Out of 1000 candidates, 570 candidates were appointed and sent for training on 15.04.1999 in the first batch. Remaining 430 candidates were appointed and sent for training on 22.05.2000. 98 candidates including the petitioners selected in the year 1994-1995 were not given appointment and were not sent for training along with candidates sent for training on 01.03.1996 and 02.06.1997.
3(b). The petitioners and others filed Original Application for a direction to send them for training. The said O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal. The petitioners and other affected candidates were making repeated representations. The 1st respondent issued G.O. Ms. No. 1281 Home (Police III) Department dated 22.09.1999, relaxing the age rule, etc., enabling 98 candidates including the petitioners to be appointed as Sub Inspectors of Police. Accordingly, the petitioners and others were appointed as Sub Inspectors of Police and sent for training along with second batch of Sub Inspectors selected for the year 1997-1998 on 22.05.2000 and fixed the seniority of the petitioners at the bottom of 1000 Sub Inspectors selected for the year 1997-1998. The petitioners were appointed as Sub Inspectors only based on the selection held in the year 1995 and they were not appointed on any fresh selection. On the anticipation that the petitioners would be appointed as Sub Inspectors of Police on the selection held in the year 1994-1995, the petitioners did not participate in the selection held subsequently. It is not the case of the respondents that due to 98 candidates' ineligibility or laxity they were not appointed, but they were not appointed immediately along with their batch
