Advocates:
['M/S M S SOUNDARARAJAN', '', 'B GOWTHAMA RAJAN', 'S JOHN J RAJA SINGH']

W.P.No.988 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on: 24.01.2022

Delivered on: 09.03.2022

Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

W.P.No.988 of 2009

1. S.Rajendran

2. R.Vairamoorthy

... Petitioners

Vs.

1. The Director General of Police,

Mylapore, Chennai-4.

2. T.H.Manidurai,

Inspector of Police, A.R., Salem Range.

3. R.Palani Kumar,

Inspector of Police, AR, Madurai Range.

...

Respondents

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of

India to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus to call for the records of the

first respondent pertaining to the 'C' list of Sub Inspectors (AR) fir for

promotion as Inspectors of Police in proceeding No.Rc.No.232600/

NGB.1(1)/2007 dated 29.08.2008 and quash the same in so far as second

and third respondent are concerned and direct the first respondent to

include the petitioners names at the appropriate place in the 'C' list of Sub

Inspectors (AR) fit for promotion as Inspectors of Police (AR) for the

year 2008 with all consequential benefits.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.S.Soundararajan

For Respondents

: Mr.P.Anandakumar, Govt. Adv. for R1

R3- No Appearance

1 of 22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.988 of 2009

ORDER

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the first respondent

dated 29.08.2008, in and by which, the first respondent had appointed

the respondents 2 and 3 as Inspectors of Police, Salem and Madurai

Range and direct the first respondent to include the petitioners' name at

the appropriate place in the 'C' list of Sub Inspectors (Armed Reserve-

AR) fit for promotion as Inspectors of Police (AR) for the year 2008 with

all consequential benefits

2. The case of the petitioner in brief, is as follows:

2.1. The first petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable

on 25.10.1984 at Nagapattinam (Armed Reserve) and he was promoted

as Head Constable on 27.07.1993 and then promoted as Sub Inspector of

Police on 01.08.2000 in the Thanjavur Range. The second petitioner was

enlisted as police constable on 17.11.1988 and promoted as Head

Constable on 09.02.1995 and then promoted as Sub Inspector of Police

on 01.08.2000.

.

2 of 22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.988 of 2009

2.2. The Director General of Police has drawn the 'C' list of Sub

Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve - AR), dated 29.08.2008 fit for

promotion as Inspector of Police AR, for the year 2008, in which the

petitioners names were not included. The above 'C' list has been drawn

based on the Range Wise Seniority and not on the State Wise Seniority,

which is contrary to the Rules.

2.3. In Thanjavur range, Sl.Nos.1 and 3 in the 'C' list of Sub

Inspectors had retired from service and Sl.No.2 was already promoted as

Inspector of Police and Sl.No.4 expired. Therefore, even according to the

respondent, the first and second petitioners, who are in Sl.Nos.5 and 6

shall be considered, but their names were not included in the 'C' list.

2.4. In Madurai Range, Head Constables were promoted as Sub

Inspector of Police and seniority list was drawn as per the marks obtained

in the Range promotion Board, but the respondent failed to re-arrange

this seniority, as per the feeder category seniority, in accordance with

rules. In Madurai Range, one Palanikumar name was included as Serial

No.3, who is junior to the petitioners.

3 of 22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.988 of 2009

2.5. According to the petitioners, the date of 'B' list of both the

petitioners and the above Palanikumar is one and the same i.e.

01.08.2000 and hence, inter-se seniority should have been fixed

according to their seniority in the feeder category, viz., Head Constable.

The first respondent did not prepare the 'C' list in accordance with the

Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules [in short

TNPSS Rules”] by preparing Statewise Seniority. Therefore, challenging

the 'C' list