S JEEVARATHINAM Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, the writ petition itself has been taken up for disposal.

(2.) THE petitioners are presently working as Head Constables. In order to fill up five posts of Sub Inspectors of Police ear-marked for the promotees, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpet Range, who is the second respondent herein, conducted range promotion board and the same was done as per the memo. issued by the Chief Officer in R.C.No.10138/NGB V(2)/2000 dated 12.5.2000. THE final list was drawn without including the names of the petitioners. Only five persons were included and they were all promoted. THEreafter, the petitioners made their representations to the second respondent stating that the number of vacancies in the range for the post of Sub-Inspectors are more and so they may be considered for promotion as against the said vacancies.

(3.) AFTER considering all such representations, the first respondent, by his proceedings in Rc.No.47409/NGB V(2)/2002 dated 14.1.2004 rejected the request of the petitioners. Challenging the said order of the first respondent, the petitioners filed O.A.No.1132 of 2004 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on the abolition of the said Tribunal, the said O.A. was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.2691 of 2005 and that is how the present writ petition is now before this Court for disposal.