J.JANORIOUS FAUSTA Vs. P.K.MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge raised in this appeal is to the reversal of seniority by the learned Single Judge through the impugned judgment in relation to Sub Inspectors (Technical) that had been finalized in the year 2007 on the basis of Ad-hoc Rules of 1999 and Rule 25 of the Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, on the basis of marks obtained in the final examination at the Police Training College, Vellore. The Rules have been extracted and referred to in the impugned judgment and, therefore, need not be reproduced again.

(2.) The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for theappellants is that the learned Single Judge, in his opinion, by applying the rule of purposive interpretation has come to the conclusion that it is rather preposterous for the administration to have given undue weightage only to the proficiency of General Knowledge, completely wishing away their proficiency in the technical subjects/training. In order to understand the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, where he has also held that the Rule has been applied too rigidly and with little application of mind, the Proviso to Rule 25(a), which is the bone of contention between the parties, is extracted herein under:

(3.) The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has practically legislated and given a new dimension to the then existing Rule on the basis of what should and what ought to be correct in his opinion, which amounts to substituting the very rule of seniority itself under the cover of a purposive interpretation.