T. RAMACHANDRAN, Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI), REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE different writ petitions filed by different incumbents in Tamil Nadu State Police Service raise common questions of fact and law and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) PETITIONERS are aspirants for being promoted to Indian Police Service (hereinafter referred to as I.P.S). I.P.S. is one of the All India Services as per the definition contained in Section 2 of The All India Service Act,1951. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act authorises the Central Government to frame rules for regulation of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Service. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(4) of the aforesaid Act, the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 have been made by the Central Government. Presently Rule 4 contemplates two methods of recruitment to I.P.S., by a competitive examination and secondly by promotion of substantive members of State Police Service. Rule 9 authorises the Central Government to make regulation relating to recruitment by promotion and accordingly Indian Police Service (appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955 have been made. Regulation 5(3) s down the Committee shall not consider the cases of the members of the State Police Service who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year in which the Committee meets for the purpose of including the names of the suitable officers. Initially as per the Regulation, such upper age has been fixed at 52 when the age of retirement of officers belonging to I.P.S. was fixed at 55. Subsequently when such retirement age was raised to 58, an amendment was made to the Regulation fixing the upper age limit at 54. Presently the age of retirement of I.P.S. Officers having been increased to 60, the petitioners representation were made to the Central Government for amending the Regulations to fix the upper age limit at 56 and such representation having been rejected, the petitioners have filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chennai. The Central Administrative Tribunal refused to entertain the matter by passing the following order : -

(3.) THEREAFTER the petitions have filed the present writ petitions praying for the following relief : -