IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

and WMP NO. 6728 OF 2024

Kotteswari

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Director General Of Police

Chennai 600 004.

2.The Member Secretary

Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board

71, Adithanar Road, Pudupet,

Egmore, Chennai 600 002.

3.The Superintendent Of Police

Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

Egmore, Chennai 600 002.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER; Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent herein in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. R4 / 0444/ 2024 dated 13.02.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2023 under 10 percentage ward executive quota in GT (W) (PSTM) (SC) on par with her batch mates together with all consequential service benefits within a time frame as deem fit and

proper by this Honourable Court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. G.Bala for M/s. G.Bala And Daisy For Respondent(s): Mr.R.U.Dinesh Raj Kumar, AGP R1 & 3 Ms.D.Sowmi Dattan, SC R2

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order passed by the third respondent and for consequential direction to appoint him as Sub Inspector of Police for the year 2023 under 10% Ward Executive Quota in GT(W) (PSTM)(SC).

2. According to the petitioner, she has applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 2023 under Ward Executive (W) (PSTM)(SC) category. Thought the petitioner has secured 51 marks, she was denied appointment on the ground that there is no vacancy against the said vacancy. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she is fully eligible and entitled for to get selected for appointment of the said post. However, the third respondent has passed an order rejecting her candidature. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit narrating the selection procedure adopted by the respondents and the various quotas available and the methodology adopted by the respondents for filling up the same. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, the respondent has clearly stated that the claim of the petitioner that the two PSTM vacancies have been filled with non PSTM candidates was false. The second respondent has demonstrated that the petitioner who is an SC PSTM candidate could not be selected in SC(A) PSTM post as SC(A) NPSTM candidates were available for the said post. Moreover, the comparison of the petitioner on the selection of one Sathyamoorthy is also factually incorrect. Since the said Sathyamoorthy belongs to SC community and he was selected available Executive Ward SC (PSTM) post in the old list for Taluk and failed to get selected in the revised list as per minute. Since no post for SC Women PSTM has been allotted under executive wards, the petitioner who belongs to SC community cannot be selected SC(A)PSTM category.

4. A bare reading of the counter affidavit would shows that the respondents had followed the procedures meticulously while selecting candidates under various categories. Though the counter affidavit was filed during February 2025, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder disputing the facts stated by the respondent till today. This Court does not doubt the statement made by the second respondent in the methodology adopted for filling up the post under various categories.

5. The writ petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

11-12-2025 M.DHANDAPANI J.

rli Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

1.Director General of Police Chennai 600 004

2.The Member Secretary Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recrutiment Board

71, Adithanar Road, Pudupet, Egmore, Chennai 600 002.

3.The Superintendent Of Police Tamilnadu Unif