GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. G A KANNAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions have been filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Director General of Police against the common order dated 10.4.2002 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2087 of 1992 and other connected Original Applications.

(2.) TO appreciate the questions raised in the present writ petitions it is necessary to notice the facts in their historical perspective, in some detail. More than three decades back, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.1154 dated 26.4.1971 sanctioning creation of 1000 posts of Grade I Police Constables to be filled up by direct recruitment from persons having SSLC qualification and further upgrading 1100 existing Police Constables from Grade II into Grade I Constables to provide promotion to Grade I of the existing Constables who possess SSLC qualification. The method of selection by direct recruitment and by promotion were also indicated in the said G.O.. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms.No.2500 dated 14.9.1971, the Government again sanctioned for conversion of 1000 posts of Police Constable Gr.II into Police Constable Gr.I to be filled up by senior constables, who do not possess SSLC qualification. Thereafter, the Government issued a Notification in G.O.Ms.No.1258 dated 9.5.1973 containing Adhoc Rules to be applied to the holders of temporary posts of Grade I Constables with retrospective effect from 26.4.1971. Rule 3 of the aforesaid Adhoc Rules provided for appointment by direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer from the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service and by promotion from among the holders of the posts of Constables in Category 8 as follows :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that the question relating to seniority among the directly recruited Grade-I Constables and promoted Grade-I Constables, as per the provision then available, had already been decided by the High Court in W.P.Nos.3014 and 4872 of 1979 and the Tribunal should not have come to any different conclusion on the said aspect. It is further submitted that merely because the Rules have been subsequently amended, which provided for fixation of seniority of the direct recruits and the promotees from the date of their appointment, it has no relevance to the question raised that as per the existing Rues, seniority had already been fixed. LEARNED counsel has also submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave illegality in not considering the question of delay/laches.