A RANGATHAL Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that she was recruited as a Women Sub-Inspector of Police, by direct recruitment. Having been selected by the Board, she had joined in duty as a Women Sub Inspector of police, on 25.3.1981. She had satisfactorily completed her probation, on 24.9.1983. THE petitioner is governed by the Adhoc Rules issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home, dated 1.11.1974, as amended from time to time. According to the said Rules, the General and Special Rules applicable to the holders of permanent posts in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service shall also apply to the holders of temporary posts of Women Sub Inspectors, Head Constables and police constables, sanctioned from time to time, in the police department, subject to certain modifications. Accordingly, the petitioner had been directly recruited as a Sub-Inspector of Police, as per the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules.

(3.) IN the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a women sub-inspector, on 25.3.1981. She had completed her probation on 24.9.1983. Thereafter, she was promoted as a temporary women inspector of police in the year 1993, purely on a temporary basis, along with other senior women sub inspectors of police, consequent to the opening of the all women police stations. She had joined as a temporary women inspector of police, on 14.7.1993, and since she was not included in the 'C' list of Sub-INspectors of Police fit for promotion as inspectors, for the year 1995-1996 in the memo of the Director General of Police, dated 20.10.1995, she was reverted as a women sub-inspector of police, on 14.11.1995. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that she should have been included in the list of sub-inspectors fit for promotion as INspector of police in the 'C' list of the year 1994-1995, it has been stated that women sub-inspectors of police were not included in the 'C' list for the year 1994-1995 due to administrative reasons. Further, the petitioner was not included in the 'C' list of Sub-INspectors of Police fit for promotion as INspectors of Police for the year 1995-1996, since certain charges, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in P.R.No.48/95, were pending against the petitioner.