ORDER

The writ petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police during the year 2008 and was sent for one year statutory training which ended on 17.01.2009 and posted in Category II/Armed Reserve.

2. The petitioner states that he is entitled for conversion from Armed Reserve to Law and Order category as per the Government Policy. The cases of similarly placed persons working in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors were considered positively by the respondents and now they are serving as Sub-Inspectors in the Law and Order category and the case of the writ petitioner was not considered merely on the ground that he suffered punishment of censure.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as regards unblemished record of service, none of the punishment is in currency as of now and the punishments awarded expired long back and thus, there is no impediment for considering the case of the writ petitioner for grant of conversion to the Law and Order category.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the terms and conditions stipulated in the Government Orders are to be complied with for conversion of the Armed Reserved Police to Law and Order category. Such terms and conditions if not complied with, then those cases were not to be considered for conversion. The learned Additional Government Pleader relied on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and stated that five conditions are to be complied with, which are fixed as eligibility criteria for appointment as Sub-Inspector (Taluk) falling under Law and Order category.

(1) Must be a graduate.

(2) Should not have completed 40 years of age (3) Should have put in five years of service as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve/Tamil Nadu Special Police)

(4) Who have unblemished record of service (5) Eligibility, selection, training, internal assessment etc., 5. It is contended that the writ petitioner has suffered with punishment in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the writ petitioner was not considered for conversion to the Law and Order category.

6. It is contended by the respondents that cut off date has been fixed for transfer of Sub-Inspectors (AR/TSP) recruited for the year has been fixed as 01.07.2013 as per Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 1598, Home Department dated 05.11.1997 and they should have unblemished record of service. Therefore, the second respondent, viz., Director General of Police called for the details of the eligible Sub- Inspectors of Police, Tamil Nadu Armed Reserve for conversion to the Sub-Inspects of Police (Taluk) by transfer vide memo dated 02.03.2016 and since the writ petitioner suffered punishment of censure and another disciplinary proceedings was pending against him, his name was not considered.

7. It is contended that the writ petitioner suffered with earned punishment in the departmental disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner was not considered.

8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.09.2017 passed in W.A. No. 1186 of 2017, wherein the following observations are made:-

"24. Material on record further discloses that, even the Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, has thought if fit not to initiate disciplinary proceedings, for any alleged misconduct, pending disposal of the criminal case. On the other hand, it is the categorical admission that disciplinary proceedings would be deferred till the conclusion of criminal case, which decision of the authority only indicates that other than the criminal case registered against him, respondent has not committed any serious misconduct, in the discharge of his duties.

25. As per the version of Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader, only one witness, PW1 alone has to be cross examined. Even taking for granted that the respondent is transferred to any