N. RANGASWAMY Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . N. Rangaswamy has come to this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the Secretary to Government, Home (Police -III) Department in Letter (Ms) No. 613 dated 12.07.2010, to quash the same with a further direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Sub -Inspector of Police from the year 1987 on par with one Mr. P.P. Ravikumar. Mr. R. Shanmugam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, after joining the police service as a Constable in the year 1980, applied for taking part in the direct recruitment to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police in the year 1981. He was selected in the physical fitness test with the State -wise seniority rank No. 193. After the physical test, the date of the written examination was also intimated to him, but the same was postponed without any reason. However, an intimation was given to the petitioner that the date of examination would be announced later. In the year 1983, again applications were called for and the petitioner also made his application. But the selection process was not implemented in that year. Once again in the year 1984, applications were called for and the petitioner again applied. But his application was rejected for the reason that he was over -aged by 16 days. However, seeking relaxation of his over -age by 16 days, the petitioner also made his representation as per the Standing Orders. But the same was not considered. After making reminders on 18.12.84, 5.9.86, 5.4.88, 4.5.92, 28.5.93 and 28.9.94, the petitioner still was not able to get any response. Thereafter, the respondents called for fresh applications in the year 1994 for selection to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police with 20% of seats reserved for departmental candidates. Again, the petitioner made his application and participated in the selection process, as there was no age condition prescribed for the departmental candidates. Again the petitioner was not selected. Although he made repeated reminders with a request to pass orders on his claim for age relaxation, no order was passed. In the meanwhile, one Palanichamy, whose application was also rejected for the same reason, filed original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was also allowed. Challenging the same, the first respondent filed W.P. No. 21925 of 2002, but the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the said candidate Mr. Palanichamy was appointed as Sub -Inspector of Police with retrospective effect. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation stating that he was also a similarly placed person and requested to consider his claim for appointment as Sub -Inspector of Police. But no order was passed, which compelled the petitioner to file W.P. No. 8313 of 2006 seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider his representation dated 24.8.2002 to appoint him as Sub -Inspector of Police by including his name in the selection list of Sub -Inspectors of Police for the year 1984. Only after the filing of the writ petition by the petitioner, one Mr. P.P. Ravikumar filed W.P. No. 30436 of 2007 praying to re -fix his seniority in the rank of Sub -Inspector of Police on par with the 1987 batch of Sub -Inspectors of Police, who were recruited during the year 1984, instead of with the 1995 batch Sub -Inspectors of Police. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 10.2.2010, giving a direction to the respondents to re -fix Mr. P.P. Ravikumar's seniority in the cadre of Sub -Inspector of Police along with 1987 batch personnel. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's W.P. No. 8313 of 2006 was also disposed of with a direction to consider his representation dated 24.8.2002. In deference to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the first respondent passed an order in Letter (Ms) No. 613 dated 12.7.2010 rejecting the petitioner's claim for age relaxation by stating that the petitioner cannot claim any right on par with the said Mr. P.P. Ravikumar.

(2.) THE learned senior counsel for the petitioner, assailing the approach adopted by the respondents, stated that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is without appreciation of the real facts between the petitioner and the said Mr. P.P. Ravikumar. The first respondent ought to have seen that no selection had taken place in the years 1981 and 1983 for administrative reasons. But the cases of both the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Ravikumar were rejected in the selection on the ground that both of them were over -aged. When Mr. Ravikumar's candidature was also rejected for want of height even in the 1994 selection, as he was only 168.3 cms., the respondents cannot discriminate the petitioner alone, when his colleague was given a special treatment by granting age relaxation. But the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was unable to even indicate the height of the petitioner. However, it was argued before this Court that when Mr. P.P. Ravikumar was granted age relaxation, why the petitioner alone should be denied the said benefit of age relaxation. Now Mr. P.P. Ravikumar was not only promoted to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police, but he was also given seniority with retrospective effect from 1987. Therefore, the impugned order mentioning extraneous reason for rejecting the petitioner's case should be set aside and the petitioner also should be given the same benefit on par with Mr. P.P. Ravikumar.