STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. S MARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitions in W.P.Nos.17639 to 17660 of 2001, 17822 to 17826, 17827 to 17830, 18349 to 18356 and 17899 to 17903 of 2003 have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal directed that the applicants in the Original Applications before it, who appeared for selection as Sub-Inspectors of Police from open market should be selected and appointed as Sub-Inspectors of police if they fulfil the other requirements of satisfaction of antecedents, etc., and in respect of certain other applicants who appeared for selection, while serving in the Department as Police Constables and Head-Constables should be selected and appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police in the same manner. As regards the applicant in O.A.No.10161 of 1998, the Tribunal held that the tests including Physical Efficiency Test should be conducted within a period of three months from the date of its order, namely, 19.7.2001 and if that applicant secures the cut- off marks or above, he should also be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police within three months thereafter.

(2.) IN W.P.Nos.32253 to 32255, 32499, 33135. 33136, 22344, 22015, 23063, 34275 of 2004. etc., some unsuccessful candidates who participated in the selection of Sub-INspectors of Police in the year 1997-1998, came forward with these writ petitions claiming the very same relief which has been granted by the State Administrative Tribunal which are covered by the Writ Petitions Nos. 17639 of 2001, etc. preferred by the State Government. That apart, the original applications which were pending on the file of the State Administrative Tribunal, in which, similar relief has been claimed by certain other unsuccessful candidates were transferred to the file of this Court inasmuch as the State Administrative Tribunal has not been posted with the Presiding Officer and since the claims are identical as that of the claims made in the earlier original applications.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the scope of controversy involved in these writ petitions as well as the Original Applications, a brief history of the case is required to be stated.