AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner joined in Armed Reserve Force as Police Constable in 1979. In 1989, he became Head Constable.
The next promotion from the post of Head Constable is to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of
Police is governed by the special rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. As per the special rules, the promotion to the post of Sub
Inspector of Police is conducted by the Range Promotion Board. The Head Constables have to participate in the selection process. The selection
process consists of written test, drill test and viva-voce test.
As stated above, the Petitioner belongs to Ramnad Range. The Range Promotion Board, Ramanathapuram conducted selection to fill the post
of Sub Inspector of Police, by way of promotion in the year 1999 -2000. Pursuant to the selection process, a list of Head Constables (Armed
Reserve), fit for promotion for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) in the year 1999 -2000, was issued by the 3rd Respondent,
by his proceedings dated 31.07.2000.
The list is based on the marks obtained in the selection process. The list has contained 42 names of the post Head Constables. The Petitioner''s
rank is at No. 8 and he has obtained 67 marks. The persons, who obtained more marks than 67 are ranked between 1 to 7.
Out of the said 42 persons, six persons were included in the ''C'' list of Head Constables, fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police for the
year 1999 -2000 as the vacancies that were sought to be filled up were fixed at 6. Since six vacancies were notified and filled up and as the
Petitioner''s rank is at 8, he was not included in the ''C'' list, for the year 1999 - 2000.
According to the Petitioner, the ''C'' list should have contained 8 names. Had the ''C'' list contained 8 names, the name of the Petitioner should
have found place therein. It is stated by the Petitioner categorically in the paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that
one Mr. Durairaj and Raja of Ramnad Range were promoted as Inspectors in July 2000. Therefore, when the estimated vacancy was finalized on
30.06.2000, those two vacancies should also have been taken into account. Had it been taken into account, the ''C'' list should have contained 8
names. Thereafter, no selection process was conducted by the Range Promotion Board, Ramanathapuram for the year2000 - 2001 and 2001 -
2002.
When the Range promotion Board for 2003 conducted the selection process in 2004 and prepared the persons fit for inclusion for the
promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, the Petitioner was not included therein, since he did not secure the required marks. Likewise, the
Range Promotion Board for the year 2004 conducted in the year 2005 and the Petitioner was not successful to get included in the ''C'' list.
The ''C'' list for the year 2004 was issued by the 3rd Respondent by an order dated 14.03.2005. As stated above, the name of the Petitioner
does not find place therein as he failed to secure the sufficient marks.
The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 14.03.2005 of the 3rd Respondent and also sought a
declaration that the Petitioner is entitled for promotion in the year 2000 itself.
The Respondents filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations.
Head the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1
to 5.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 5.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that in the present writ petition, though the Petitioner sought to quash the order dated
14.03.2005 of the 3rd Respondent, selecting 4 persons and including them in the ''C'' list of Head Constables, fit for promotion to the post of Sub
Inspector of Police for the year 2004, the Petitioner does not press for quashing the said order.
According to the Petitioner, he has no grievance for his non inclusion in the ''C'' list of the year 2003 and 2004, as he did not secure the
sufficient high marks.
According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled for promotion in the year 2000 itself as there arose 8 vacancies and he ranked as 8 in the
list of Head Constables, fit for promotion. But, only six vacancies were estimated.
On the other hand, the specific case of the Petitioner is that there were 8 vacancies. The specific case of the Petitioner as pleaded in paragraph
No. 7 of the affidavit is that two Sub Inspectors, by name Mr. Durairaj and Raja were promoted as Inspectors in July 2000. Those two vacancies
were not filled up by way of Selection by the Range Promotion Board, Ramanathapuram. On the other hand, two persons were selected by the
Range Promotion Board, Dindigul and posted to Ramanathapuram Range. Para 7 of the affidavit of the Petitioner is extracted hereunder in this
regard:
I submit the estimated vacancy was finalized as on 30.06.2000. After this two Sub Inspectors viz., Mr. Durairaj and Raja of my range was
promoted as Inspectors in July 2000. Hence two vacancies arose for the post of Sub Inspectors. In the year 2000 itself I made my request fill up
the vacancies by giving promotion to me as I was very well eligible. However, Respondent did not consider my legitimate request for promotion
instead the Respondents filled up the existing two vacancies of Sub Inspector post from transferring one Mahendran and Chandran of Dindigul
range without convening any Board for promotion in our range and without promoting any eligible persons of our range.
The Petitioner relies on Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders No. 36 in Chapter VII, more particularly, the paragraph No 2.
Officers responsible for the preparation of promotion lists will regulate the number of officers on each ''C'' list to ensure that on each occasion
when a list is prepared or revised the number of names in it is not more than the total number of vacancies expected to arise the next year in the
category or rank to which officiating promotions from the list are to be made. The vacancies expected to arise should be calculated on the basis of
the total number of permanent and temporary posts in existence in the category or rank, the anticipated sanction of new posts in the next year, the
requirement of leave reserve, anticipated vacancies due to retirement and promotion, etc., minus the number of persons already in position in that
category of rank.
According to the Petitioner, in preparing the estimated vacancies, the anticipated vacancies due to promotion should be taken into account as per
the aforesaid paragraph No. 2 of the Police Standing Order No. 36.
The order dated 13.06.2003 issued by the 2nd Respondent, posting Thiru. Chandran and Mahendran is reproduced hereunder:
In accordance with the orders issued in chief office reference second cited, the following HC''s (AR) who are included in the C list of HC''s (AR)
fit for promotion as SI (AR) for the year 2002 in Dindigul range are promoted as SI of Police (AR) and posted to the districts noted against local
Sl.No. Rank, No. and Present DistrictPromoted and posted
Name to
HC 327 AR/Theni AR/Sivagangai
Chandran
HC 337 AR/Theni AR/Ramanathapuram
Mahendran
The aforesaid order dated 13.06.2003 makes it clear that those two persons viz., Mr.,. Rajendran and Mahendran were included in the ''C'' list of
Head Constables fit for promotion in the year 2002 in Dindigul Range and posted to Ramanathapuram Range. The Petitioner is not objecting for
transfer of the Sub Inspectors from one range to another range. But, the objection is to fill the vacancy that has arisen in one range by promotion
made in different range.
Paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit of the Petitioner was replied in Paragraph No. 12 of the counter affidavit of the Respondents. In Para 12 of
the counter affidavit, the points raised by the Petitioner were not answered directly. When the Petitioner categorically stated that two Sub
Inspectors of Ramanathapuram were promoted as Inspectors in July 2000 and those vacancies should be counted for preparing ''C'' list for the
year 1999 -2000, the same was not answered by the Respondents in paragraph No. 12 of the counter. Paragraph No. 12 of the counter affidavit
is extracted hereunder:
With regard to averment contained in Para 7 of the affidavit, it is submitted that at the time of conducting promotion test, the estimated vacancies
was 6 only. As per the gradation list of marks obtained by them, 6 Hcs (Armed Reserve) who secured higher marks in the order of merit were re-
arranged in the order of seniority in the feeder category of Hcs (Armed Reserve) and they were included in the ''C'' list for the year 1999-2000
and the list was also published as scheduled. The ''C'' list was published only on the basis of estimated vacancies worked out at the time of
conducting promotion tests. Further vacancies arose due to transfer, promotion etc., could not be taken into account, and promotion could not be
given to the Petitioner as he was not included in the ''C'' list drown for the year 1999 - 2000.
As stated above, the objection of the Petitioner is not that no Sub Inspector should be transferred from Dindigul range to Ramanathapuram Range.
According to him, the vacancy that arose in Ramanathapuram Range should not be filled up by persons, who were selected by Dingidul Range.
The vacancies in Ramanathapuram Range should be filled by the Range promotion Board by conducting selection process. But the Respondents
have proceeded as if the Petitioner was objecting for the general transfers. Para 13 of the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:
With regard to averments contained in para 8 of the affidavit it is submitted that the post of SI is governed by the special rules for TNPSS which
prescribe the procedure for selection of eligible Hcs for promotion as Sis of Police. The conducting of Promotion Board for selection of Sis is
envisaged in Special Rules for TNPSS. The Hcs who were included in the ''C'' list are promoted as Sis immediately on publication of ''C'' list. The
transfer and posting of persons belonging to different range are unavoidable due to administrative reasons in police department.
It is also not in dispute that no promotion Board was convened for the year 2001 and 2002 for Ramanathapuram Range, since, there was no
vacancy. In this regard, paragraph No. 14 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
With regard to Para 9 of the affidavit it is submitted that since there was no vacancy of Sis in Ramanathapuram Range, no promotion board was
convened in the years 2001 and 2002.
Therefore, there is a substantial force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the ''C'' list for the year
1999 -2000 should have contained 8 names taking into account the two vacancies caused due to the promotion of Durairaj and Raja and those
vacancies were filled by promotion of one Mr. Mahendran and Chandran belonging to different range.
Therefore, the 2nd Respondent is directed to consider the claim of the Petitioner for inclusion in the ''C'' list for 1999 -2000 in the said
circumstances and to pass an appropriate order in the light of the observation made above within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.