The court held that Government Orders related to upgradation and promotion of police personnel operated prospectively and did not allow for deemed upgradation or promotion.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in WA No.3748 of 2019: Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 05.09.2014 made in writ petition No.24109 of 2014.)

Common Order

N. Anand Venkatesh., J.

1. The Hon’ble First Bench of this Court while dealing with an Appeal in Writ Appeal No.3748 of 2019 found that there is an apparent conflict between the judgments of co-equal Benches. The Hon’ble First Bench found that the later Division Bench in The Principal Secretary to Government vs. V. Ramachandran and others in Review Application Nos. 70 to 79 etc. of 2015 and batch, through judgment dated 22.3.2017, (hereinafter referred to as V.Ramachandran case) had disagreed with the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in The Government of Tamil Nadu (represented by Home Secretary) vs. V.Samy and others in W.A.(MD) No. 1506/2011 etc., batch through judgment dated 17.06.13 (hereinafter referred to as V.Samy case) and hence, came to a conclusion that the matter must be referred to a Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Accordingly, by an order dated 20.12.2019, the Hon’ble First Bench framed the following questions to be referred to the Larger Bench :-

a) As to whether the judgment dated 22.03.2017 in the case of V. Ramachandran (supra), that has taken a view contrary to the earlier judgment in V. Samy (supra) deserves to be resolved by a Larger Bench, as a direct conflict has been noticed by the subsequent Division Bench on the ground that the Government orders had been misconstrued while delivering the earlier judgement.

(b) Whether the law has been laid down correctly in the case of V.Ramachandran (supra), or in the earlier decision in V.Samy (supra).

2. It is consequent upon the above order, the Full Bench was constituted and a direction was given to tag all the connected cases and to post the same before the Full Bench. Pursuant to the same, the Full Bench heard this matter through video conferencing mode.

3. Before going into the questions referred to this Full Bench, it will be more appropriate to take note of certain background facts in order to give a complete picture. The Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Special Rules, (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) governs the appointment, promotion, fixation of seniority, pay and allowance etc. of the categories of officers falling under Rule 2 of the Rules. In the present case, we are dealing with the constabulary force and the source of their appointment and promotion is dealt with under Rule 2 of the Rules read with Annexure 1 of the Rules.

4. All those falling under the category of constables fall under category 8 in Class – 1 and those falling under the category of Head Constables, fall under category 7 under Class – 1, of Rule 2 of the Rules. A careful reading of Annexure 1 shows that persons falling under the category of constables are selected by direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer and it is dealt with under category 8 of Annexure 1. Insofar as Head Constables are concerned, it is a promotion post from the post of constable, which is the feeder post and it is dealt with under category 7 of Annexure 1. The post of Head Constable is also a feeder post for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police provided that the concerned Head Constable clears the relevant examination. Thus, the post of Sub-Inspector of Police is filled up through direct recruitment and promotion from the post of Head Constable in the ratio of 60:40.

5. The Rules do not anywhere categorise constables as Grade II and Grade I constables. This seems to have evolved more out of practice in vogue for the last several years. By means of certain policy decisions and issuing Government Orders (hereinafter referred as G.Os), Grade I Police Constable is treated as a promotion post for which Grade II Constable is the feeder post. Similarly, Grade I Police Constable post is treated as a feeder post