T MANIVANNAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent passed in RC No.A1/1416/2005, dated 22.07.2005 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to finalize the 'C' list on the basis of the marks secured by the petitioners in the range promotion board for the year 2004 and to grant such other further relief by this Court on the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the petitioners have entered into the service as Grade-II Police Constables in the Chengelpet East, Kancheepuram District, Armed Reserve and subsequently, they were promoted as Grade-I Police Constables. After successfully completing their probation, they were qualified to participate before the range promotion board for their next promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve). The petitioners had participated in the range promotion board, that was conducted in the year 2003, however they were not selected, since they could not secure the minimum cut-off marks for the selection. As per the Service Rules, every year range promotion board is convened for the preparation of 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the Director General of Police, Chennai, the first respondent herein had issued a Memorandum in R.C.No.69684/NGBV(2)/2004, dated 12.01.2005 convening the range promotion board for drawal of 'C' list of Head Constable (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 2004. As per the Memorandum, there were 12 vacancies available in Chengelpet Range. The Superintendent of Police Chengalpet East, Kancheepuram, who was the Chairman of the range promotion board issued a Memo in R.C.No.A3/1648/05, dated 24.02.2005 listing the eligible Head Constables for the written test and for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (AR).

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the respondents 1 to 5 have violated the principles of natural justice and also the TNPSS (D & A) Rules, in passing the impugned orders. Though as per Rule 4(a) of the General Rules, the promotion list shall be communicated to such of those persons, whose names have been included and others who were deferred or deleted, the mandatory procedure was not complied with, so far as the petitioners are concerned. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further contended that merely because the petitioners had been served with charge memos, under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules, they could not be treated as disqualified persons for consideration and for the inclusion of their names in the 'C' list, prepared by the respondents 1 to 4 for the promotion of Sub-Inspectors.