RAJENDRAN VALAVANUR 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.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that now the petitioner, while the matter is pending, on reaching the age of superannuation, retired from service. However, in spite of G.O.Ms.No.844, Home dated 3.6.97, the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable only in the year 1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted before this Court that though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2009, within one year, he retired from service, viz., 2010. Therefore, the denial of promotion to the petitioner by the respondents is denial of implementing the G.O.Ms.No.844, Home dated 3.6.97. When the said Government Order gives the method of upgradation from the post of Grade -II Police Constable to Grade -I Police Constable, from Grade -I Police Constable to Head Constable and from Head Constable to Sub Inspector of Police, the respondents wrongly denied the benefits to be given on the basis of their own G.O.Ms.No.844, Home dated 3.6.97. On the above submissions, he prayed for allowing the writ petition by issuing suitable directions to the respondents to work out the petitioner's service benefits.