SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70766

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
G.Deepa – Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Police – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.07.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No. 4712 of 2020 and W.P. No. 16840 of 2022 and W.M.P. No. 5568 of 2020 and W.M.P. Nos. 16129 and 16132 of 2022 W.P. No. 4712 of 2020 G.Deepa ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Director General of Police, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

3. C.Siva ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Na. Ka. No. A2(1)/8789/2019 dated 14.02.2020 and DO No. 99/2020 and C No. A2/(1)/8789/2019 dated 14.02.2020, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 & 2 to promote the petitioner as Head Constable in the Armoury and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits.

W.P. No. 16840 of 2022 G.Deepa ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Director General of Police, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

3. C.Siva ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in DO No. 277/2022 in C. No. A2(1)/04846/2022 dated 08.04.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 & 2 to promote the petitioner as Head Constable in the District Armoury (Armed Reserve and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Venkatramani, in both W.Ps Senior Counsel for Mr. M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr. P.Kumaresan, in both W.Ps Additional Advocate General assisted by S.Arumugam, Government Advocate (for R1 & R2)

Mr. M.D.Ilaya Raja for Mr. R.Sasikumar (for R3) C O M M O N O R D E R W.P. No. 4712 of 2020 has been filed challenging the order dated

14.02.2020, passed by the second respondent, thereby promoting the third respondent herein to Head Constable.

2. W.P. No. 16840 of 2022 has been filed challenging the order dated 08.04.2022, thereby the promotion of the third respondent to Head Constable (Armourer) was declared.

3. The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same.

The issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is also against the third respondent.

4. The petitioner, qualified with SSLC, participated in the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board's recruitment process for Grade-II Police Constable in 2009. She was selected and appointed on 01.03.2009, serving in Tamil Nadu Special Police V Battalion, Avadi. The petitioner underwent 10 months Armoury Course training at Regimental Centre, Avadi from 24.01.2011 to 13.12.2011, qualifying her to serve in the Armoury.

4.1. In the year 2011, she was posted as Armourer in TSP Battalion on 26.03.2012 until transferred to Thiruvannamalai District Armed Reserve on19.07.2013. Upon transfer, the petitioner reported for duty and joined as Armourer on 25.07.2013. The petitioner was upgraded to Grade-I Police Constable Armourer by proceedings dated 01.04.2019 with effect from 01.08.2017.

4.2. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted selection grade in the category of Women Grade-II Police Constable and upgraded as Woman Grade-I Police Constable on 27.01.2020. Consequently, the petitioner requested promotion to the post of Head Constable in the Armoury. However, this request was rejected by communication dated 27.01.2020. While that being so, the third respondent was promoted to the post of Head Constable.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is senior to the third respondent in terms of the seniority list in the Armoury, and merely because she was transferred from one category to another category, she will not lose her seniority, especially in the Armoury wing. The request

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top