G MANAVALAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the Head constables temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting their respective Original Applications.

(2.) FACTS leading to filing of W. P. No. 16294 to 16297, 21333, 16299, 16300 of 2004 are as follows: These batch of writ petitions have been filed by unsuccessful applicants who were enlisted as Police Constables Grade-II and in the course of time, they were promoted as Head Constables and they became eligible to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. It appears that in the year 1992, they had appeared before the Range Promotion Board and participated in the test as envisaged under the Special Rules relating to Tamil Nadu Police subordinate Service (hereinafater referred to as'the Rules'). However, their names were not included in the'c'list for various reasons. In the year 1998, the present batch of applicants were temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspectors of police and they were continuing to work as such. In view of their long service as temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police, the contention of the applicants before the Tribunal was that they should be regularised without being directed to undergo various tests prescribed under the Rules. Strong reliance was placed on the earlier orders of the Tribunal of the years 1992 and 1995, wherein the Head constables who were temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police were directed to be regularised without undergoing the test as contemplated under the Rules. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the proceedings of the director General of Police of the year 2000 whereunder the Range Promotion board has been directed to select the candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in accordance with the Rules. It is also contended that since they were working for more than two years as Sub-Inspectors of Police, they should not be directed to undergo the tests by the Range Promotion Board. The Tribunal referred to the Rule which provides for various tests by the Range Promotion board and in the event of passing of such tests, the successful candidates' names will be included in the'c'list for selection. Thereafter, depending on the number of vacancies, they will be appointed. It was observed by the Tribunal that the petitioners/applicants have been temporarily appointed as sub-Inspectors of Police because of available vacancies even though they were only in the rank of Head Constables and that it was also indicated even at the time of appointment and made known to the petitioners that their appointment was purely temporary and would not confer any right in seniority or any preferential treatment in future selection. Therefore, their contention that they should be regularised as such, did not find favour with the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the claim of the petitioners/applicants and passed the common order in O. A. Nos. 4923 to 4927, 5139,5186 of 2000, 933 to 936, 938, 939, 962, 1695, 2428 of 2003 and 1143 of 2004, (batch cases), dated 21. 4. 2004 as follows: "8. So reading of the above said memo would also show that selection of the candidates is determined with reference to rules. In fact service candidates are given now fairly good scope inasmuch as ratio for promotion has been increased to 40% and this 40% is in respect of permanent and regular vacancies. So it is not as if that service candidates are not given promotion to the higher post. Rule relating to appointment to the post of sub-Inspector by selection from out service candidates. The Board consists of superintendents of Police of the Districts in the Range and Deputy Inspector general of Police is the Chairman of the Board. What these applicants want is promotion according to seniority which is not permissible as per the rules. Therefore no relief can be granted to the applicants and selection is done only in accordance with rules and selection itself is a time tested method which has been adopted for the past many years and no materials have been placed before me for giving any direction to the contra. 9. All these applicants have been promoted temporarily as sub-Inspector and they have been acting as such for a period of 2 to 4 years but even in their orders of promotion, it has been stated clearly that temporary appointment will not confer on them any preference in the matter of selection to the regular post. The request of the applicants that all the temporary Sub-Inspector must be regularised cannot be granted because it is against rules. Once merit is the basis for selection, naturally selection has to be done from among persons eligible for promotion. Various tests are prescribed and there is less chance of manipulation or giving selection according to whims and fancies of the Officers responsible for selection. Since it is time tested measure and since this is laid down by the rules, I am not inclined to concede the request of the applicants who are all temporary appointees and they cannot be regularised. 10. In the result, the applications fail and they are dismissed. " Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 21. 4. 2004, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Government/department would contend that the order of the tribunal passed in the year 1992 was accepted by the Government for the reason that no test was conducted for several years and that even in the year 1995, when the Tribunal passed the order directing the authorities to temporarily promote the Sub-Inspectors of Police by adopting screening method based on the past performance and records of service, without insisting upon the written test, viva-voce test and drill test, the Tribunal observed that in all those cases, there was no examination for several years and they were working for more than six years. The Tribunal also indicated that such order was passed in the peculiar circumstances prevailing at that point of time and should not be considered as precedent. LEARNED Additional Government Pleader would submit that when the Rule contemplates the Range Promotion Board to conduct test and prepare'c'list, there is no question of by-passing such Rule. It is also contended that if the claim of the present petitioners are accepted, then, the merits of the candidates who were successful in the various tests conducted by the Range Promotion Board and whose names find place in the'c'list will be affected. It is further contended that the Range Promotion Board had conducted the test in 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 and most of the present petitioners have participated in the examination conducted by the Range Promotion Board and some of them have failed in the test and some of them did not appear in the test and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim regularisation as a matter of right.