VALAVANUR P.S. Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Mr.S.Rajendran seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records in C.No.178959/NGB III (2)/2006 dated 9.10.2006 issued by the first respondent-Director General of Police in so far as the same was operating against the seniority of the petitioner at Serial No.1 in the seniority list of Grade-I Police Constables fixed in 1980, to quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner as Head Constable and consider the claim of the petitioner for further promotion as Special Sub -Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police with appropriate service and monetary benefits.

(2.) The claim made by the petitioner shows that he was enlisted as Grade -II Police Constable on 2.1.75 and after passing the promotional test held in 1980, he was promoted as Grade -I Police Constable on 19.12.80. Subsequently, his pay was also fixed under FR 22-B by a proceeding dated 20.3.81 passed by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore and the petitioner's name was shown in Serial No.1 in the seniority list dated 27.3.81 of Grade -I Police Constables who passed the Grade -I examination. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was reverted for want of vacancy by the proceedings dated 30.4.82 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram. However, by giving a representation, that mistake was rectified, resultantly, he was re -promoted as Grade -I Police Constable by another proceedings dated 24.7.1982. Subsequently, the then Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, without notice to the petitioner and other affected persons, altered the entire seniority list dated 27.3.81 by the proceedings dated 23.8.82. Subsequently, on giving various representations, the matter was taken to Government and the Government also, in its order issued in 1986 to the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range, directed to review the entire issue. However, by proceedings dated 7.8.86, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range confirmed the seniority list of 1982 without reference to the ranking and seniority given on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner in the promotional test held in 1980.

(3.) In view of the above, several persons filed original applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in R.A.No.90 of 1990 in T.A.No.21 of 1988 etc. batch dated 4.11.91 and a direction was issued to consider the inclusion of Grade -II Police Constables in the 'C' list on merits on the basis of the test marks. Subsequently, in the transferred T.A.No.1416 of 1989 batch, by another order dated 29.4.92, the Tribunal directed the respondents therein to re -fix the seniority of Grade -I Police Constables based on the marks obtained by them in the promotional test held in 1980. While implementing the said order passed by the said Tribunal, a modified scheme was introduced for upgradation of Grade -II Police Constables, who rendered 10 years of service, as Grade -I Police Constables. When there was a clear direction to consider the candidates, whose cases were not considered, for promotion in the next panel year, Villupuram District was bifurcated from South Arcot District in 1989, as a result, Constabulary service was separated, the vacancy position was not notified. However, the said order was partially restored, but the petitioner was not given promotion. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner shows that when the Government had already taken a policy decision to give stages of promotion to the Grade -II Police Constables upto the grade of Special Sub Inspector of Police by issuing G.O.Ms.No.844, Home (Police -5) Department dated 3.6.97 on the fulfillment of three conditions, viz., those who have completed 10 years of service are to be upgraded as Grade -I Police Constables, those who have completed 15 years of service, out of which 5 years as Grade -I Police Constables were to be promoted and upgraded as Head Constables and those who have completed 25 years of service, out of which 10 years as Grade -II Police Constables, 5 years as Grade -I Police Constable and 10 years as Head Constables, were to be promoted as Special Sub Inspector of Police without prejudice to their regular selection as Sub Inspector of Police, subject to disciplinary proceedings or break in service. That G.O.Ms.No.844, Home dated 3.6.97 has not been even considered. Had it been considered, the petitioner would have been given promotion. As it was not done, the petitioner was forced to come to this Court.