STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. R PASUPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, claiming that he joined the police service directly as Sub Inspector of Police on 1.4.1970 and he was promoted as Inspector of Police on 03.06.1983. He came within the zone of consideration for inclusion in the panel of Inspectors of Police for appointment by transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) for the year 1995-96. In fact, his name was included in the Regular Panel at Serial No.123. To his shock and surprise, in the postings made on 2.4.1997, his name did not find a place and his junior by name M.R.Nandakumar viz., the 2nd respondent herein was given posting. This prompted him to move the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to direct the petitioners to promote him as Deputy Superintendent of police with effect from 2.4.1997, giving appropriate placement in the seniority list.

(2.) THE petitioners herein resisted the said Application, contending that the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 17.07.1996 and 08.09.1996 and considered the cases of the first respondent and other Inspectors of Police for inclusion in the panel of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) for the year 1995-96. But, his name was not included in the panel as he was not found fit for appointment by the said Committee as he was having punishments during the check period of five years. THE 2nd respondent, who was his immediate Junior in the seniority list, was found fit by the Committee and his name was included in the panel and he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police by posting orders issued in Police Note No.17 dated 2.4.1997. In fact, even prior to the above said posting orders, he made a representation on 15.5.1996, praying for inclusion of his name in the 1996-97 panel. By communication dated 25.10.1996, the first respondent was informed that the panel for the year 1996-97 had not been prepared and the suitability of his name for inclusion in the panel would be assessed at the time of next Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting. In fact, the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 23.10.1997 for considering inclusion of eligible Inspectors of Police in the panel of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 1996-97, but however, the name of the first respondent was deferred in view of the pendency of charges and in terms of the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms. No.368, P & AR Department, dated 18.10.1993. In fact, this was also communicated to him.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that the first censure was during the year 1990 and the remaining three were in the year 1991. The 5th one was in the year 1993, but however, instead of communicating the same immediately, the petitioners, with an ulterior motive, communicated only in the year 1995. The belated communication was only with a view to persuade the Committee not to consider the name of the first respondent for a longer period. The name of the first respondent was in fact included in the panel for the year 1995-96 and the same was also communicated to him, which should mean that the Departmental Promotion Committee considered all the materials available on record and decided to include his name in the panel. That being the real factual position, the Writ Petition may be dismissed.