IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
B. Subramanian – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Chennai and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 3835 of 2014
Decided On : 06-07-2022
upgradation - Special Sub-Inspector of Police - G.O.Ms. No. 937, Home (Pol.V) Department dated 21.07.1998 - The court discussed the upgradation scheme introduced by the government, crucial date for upgradation, and the interpretation of government orders. The court emphasized the importance of the crucial date for uniformity and equality in upgradation and promotion, and upheld the rejection of the writ petition based on the crucial date stipulated in the government order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector of Police based on his service history, but the respondents rejected the claim citing the crucial date for upgradation as per G.O.Ms. No. 937, Home (Pol.V) Department dated 21.07.1998.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the writ petition was in line with the crucial date stipulated in the government order for upgradation. The court emphasized the importance of the crucial date for uniformity and equality in upgradation and promotion.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's eligibility for upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector of Police based on his service history and the interpretation of the crucial date for upgradation as per the government order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the rejection of the writ petition based on the crucial date stipulated in the government order for upgradation, emphasizing the importance of the crucial date for uniformity and equality in upgradation and promotion.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in RC No. 147537/NGBIII(2)/2012 dated 21.11.2012 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and further direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector by taking into consideration the total service rendered by him from 11.1.1978 to 31.7.2009 and upgrade him as Special Sub-Inspector and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
1. The order of rejection dated 21.11.2012, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for upgradation to the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner was entered into the service as Grade-II Police Constable in Chennai City Armed Reserve on 11.01.1978.
3. During the year 1984, he was transferred to Taluk Police. The petitioner was upgraded as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1984 with effect from 31.07.1984 and further, upgraded as Head Constable with effect from 01.08.1999. The petitioner reached the age of Superannuation and retired from service on 31.07.2009.
4. On 25.03.2010, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondents to consider his entire services of more than 30 years and relax the Norms in respect of upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector of Police and accordingly, upgrade him as Special Sub-Inspector of Police. As there was no response even after receiving the representation by the respondents, the petitioner filed Writ Petition in W.P. No. 19788 of 2012 and this Court passed an order dated 26.07.2012, directing the respondents to consider the claim made by the petitioner based on the Government orders. Pursuant to the orders of the High Court, the representation was disposed of by rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 21.11.2012. Challenging the same, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner has served more than 10 years in the Feeder category of Head Constable. He served as Head Constable for more than 10 years. When the petitioner has served more than 10 years in the post of Head Constable, he is entitled for upgradation as per the Government orders in force. The Government orders stipulates 10 years of service as Head Constable for grant of upgradation to the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police. However, the authorities have erroneously taken a decision that the period of 10 years is to be reckoned from the crucial date, which is perverse.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner further contended that there is no concept of crucial date for upgradation. No such crucial date has been contemplated under the scheme of upgradation. While so, there is no reason to reject the case of the writ petitioner since the petitioner had already been completed 10 years of service in the post of Head Constable and thus, he is entitled for the relief of upgradation to the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police.
7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that up to the year 1992, the Police personnel were promoted to the next rank on seniority basis as per the availability of vacancy and by conducting tests i.e. Senior promotion Test and Junior Promotion Test. Thereafter, an upgradation Scheme was introduced by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1681, Home (Pol.V) Department dated 12.10.1992 in order to remove the stagnation of promotion in the Constabulary rank. Under the Scheme 21,000 Grade-II Police Constables and 2,700 Grade I Police Constables, who have put in several years of service and not able to get even a single promo
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.