Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, J
T.Veemaraj – Appellant
Versus
Director General of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the police operation (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioners' claims for promotion (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. government's position on promotions (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's analysis of the case (Para 19) |
| 5. court's ruling on individual merit (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. final decision of the court (Para 26) |
ORDER :
2. Heard Mr.Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar, learned Additional Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3.1. The petitioner/Veemaraj joined the service as Grade II Police Constable in 1988 and thereafter selected as SI of Police and promoted as Inspector of Police and was further promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category I based on accelerated promotion by the Government in G.O. Ms No.959 Home (Pol. IV A) dated 08.11.2013 and assumed office on 13.11.2013 due to administrative delay whereas the petitioner/Vetrivelu who was a graduate joined the service as a directly recruited Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2008.
3.3. Considering their effective and risky successful operation, the Director General of Police (DGP) recommended to grant
The court ruled that individual acts of bravery warrant recognition and promotion, overriding blanket policies that deny seniority based on group promotions.
The court held that seniority must be established based on actual service dates, not retrospective adjustments, reinforcing the principles established in prior rulings regarding promotions and upgrad....
The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of FR 22-B, and the respondent authorities were directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioners by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B.
Decision-making process - Judicial review is permissible only to extent of finding whether there is any illegality or arbitrariness in decision-making process and not the decision as such - No justif....
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.
The decision to grant accelerated promotion is to the subjective satisfaction of the Competent Board and is limited to judicial review only if in violation of statutory rules or tainted with malafide....
Promotion seniority should not be altered based on delays in qualification if it complies with probation rules, affirming the importance of adhering to original seniority assignments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
