A RAMESH KUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the letter of the second respondent in No. T3/0849/2005 dated 03. 03. 2005 and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 1994.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is a post graduate, appeared for the selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police by direct recruitment held by the uniformed Services Recruitment Board in the year 1994. By a memorandum in C. No. D1/1404/94 dated 05. 06. 1995, the petitioner was called upon to be present at 7. 00 a. m on 21. 06. 1995 to attend the written test and participated in the interview conducted on 31. 07. 1995. Thereafter, petitioner states that he underwent medical test. However, in the medical test conducted by the respondent-authority, it appears that the petitioner was found not fit for selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police and therefore, his name did not find place in the select list. The petitioner, therefore, approached the authorities concerned on several occasions in person and pleaded that he should be selected. From the typedset of papers filed in support of the writ petition, it is seen that several representations have been given in person, but there is no acknowledgment for the same. However, it is the representation dated 18. 11. 2004, which has been sent by Registered post, that has been acknowledged by the respondent. Stating that there was no response for the same, the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Minister's Cell in the year 2004, which was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai , who in turn forwarded the same to the Additional Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board for its response. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, after considering the records relating to the selection of Sub Inspector of police, during the relevant period issued the impugned letter stating that since the petitioner was found medically not fit, his name was not considered for the section to the post of Sub Inspector of police and further stated that the selection process was completed long before, appointments having been made, and therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered and hence it is rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner passed in the tests conducted by the second respondent, he was not selected. It is not stated that petitioner was not selected on the ground that he was medically not fit, which detail was not communicated to him and the reason given is not tenable.