Allowed

M. Venkatesan v. Director -General of Police

Madras HC2 Aug 2011WP/13584/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions challenging show-cause notices issued to delete nayames of petitioners from a promotion 'C' list. The Court set aside orders deleting names on the ground that temporary service counted as officiating service for meeting minimum experience requirements, directing respondents to grant service benefits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned show-cause notices and orders deleting petitioners' names from the 'C' list were set aside. Petitioners were directed to be granted service benefits payable to the post of Sub-Inspector o

M. Venkatesan Vs Director -General of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.08.2011

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION Nos.13584 and 13585 of 2007

¶6

(O.A.Nos.1795 and 1796 of 2003)

¶7

M.Venkatesan .. Petitioner in
W.P.13584/2007.
C.Jayakumar .. Petitioner in
W.P.13585/2007.
/versus/
1. Director-General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-4.
2. Commissioner of Police,
City Police Office,
Chennai City, Chennai-8. .. Respondents in both
cases.

¶8

These Writ Petitions came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari by way of transfer of O.A.Nos.1795 and 1796 of 2003 respectively, to call for the records of the first respondent in his Rc.No.075665/NGB V(2)/2003 dated 7.5.2003, issuing a show-cause notice to delete the name of the petitioner from the 'C; list of Head Constables (AR) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (AR) for the year 2002 and quash the same with all consequential benefits.

¶9

For petitioner : Mr. M.Ravi Shanmugam for M/s.Sudha Ravi Associates. For respondents : Mr. S.Gunasekaran, Govt. Advocate, for Mr.M.C. Swamy Spl.G.P. ORDER

¶10

The petitioners were appointed as Grade II Police Constables in Armed Reserve, Chennai City, by order dated 25.05.1988. They were promoted as Lance Naiks on 25.3.1993. The petitioner in W.P.No.13585 of 2007 was promoted as Head Constable temporarily and he joined as temporary Head Constable on 1.1.1998. The petitioner in W.P.No.13584 of 2007 was promoted as temporary Head Constable on

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

30.5.1998. Both the petitioners were regularised as Head Constables with effect from 30.06.1999.

¶13

The 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 2002 was issued by order dated 29.03.2003. By an order dated 21.02.2003, the Director General of Police issued instructions to convene Range Promotion Board for the drawal of "C" list of Head Constables (AR) fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 2002. The petitioners participated in the selection process that was conducted by the Range Promotion Board. The Commissioner of Police published the 'C' list of Head Constables (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 2002 and the petitioners' name were included in the list at Serial Nos. 21 and 22. The petitioners were promoted as Sub Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) by order dated 31.03.2003 and they joined duty and they are serving at Delhi Police Services.

¶14

While so, the impugned show-cause notices were issued by the Director General of Police to delete the names of the petitioners from the 'C' list of Head Constables (AR) fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police, for the year 2002. The reason for deletion of the petitioners' name is that they do not have the minimum experience of four years in the feeder category, as Head Constables, either in the officiating capacity or permanent.

¶15

The petitioners filed O.A.Nos.1795 and 1796 of 2003 to quash the show-cause notices issued by the first respondent. The Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal while admitting the said Original Applications, passed elaborate order granting interim stay.

¶16

The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. In the reply affidavit, it is reiterated that the petitioners did not render four years of service, either permanent or officiating and therefore, they do not come within the zone of consideration to participate in the selection process for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector.

¶17

Heard both sides.

¶18

Rule 3(d)(iii) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service is relied on by the respondents for issuing the impugned show-cause notices is extracted hereunder:-

¶19

"3(d) In the list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police only men satisfying the following conditions shall be included:-

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

(i) Must have a good working knowledge of English.

¶22

(ii) Must not have completed 53 years of age on the first day of July of the year in which the selection for promotion of Head Constables as Sub Inspectors is held.

¶23

(iii) Must have completed a total service of seven years and must have served as Head Constable whether permanent or officiating for a period of not less than four years on the date of commencement of training."

¶24

The service rendered by the petitioners as temporary Head Constables was sought to be excluded. The issue is as to whether the petitioners' temporary service as Head Constable could be counted under the Rule 3d(iii) of the Special Rules referred to above. If the service rendered by the petitioners as Head Constables on temporary basis is treated as the service that comes under "officiating service", the impugned orders are not correct in seeking to delete the names of the petitioners from the 'C' list. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Dictionary meaning for the word "officiating" is to mean to act or discharge the duties of an office. While passing the interim orders, the Tribunal has held that the temporary service rendered by the petitioner should be termed as officiating. Paragraph No.5 of the interim order is extracted in this regard:-

¶25

"5) The Relevant Rule is 3(d) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. One of the requisite qualification for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector is that a person must have served in the department at least for seven years, out of which he must have served as Head Constable for a period of four years whether permanent or officiating. The specific words used in the Rule is that a person must have served as Head Constable either in substantive post or in a officiating post. The applicants have been working as Head Constable from January and May 1998 and they appeared for the selection held in the year 2002 and the cut of date is 1.7.2002. Therefore, they appear to have got the qualifying service as Head Constables even though they have been acting temporarily and regularisation was done only subsequently in 1999."

¶26

I am in entire agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal, in the interim order. The respondents are not correct in excluding the services rendered by the petitioners as temporary Head Constables. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

It is now stated that since the writ petitions are pending, the petitioners are not granted any service benefits in the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Since the impugned orders are quashed, the respondents are directed to give all service benefits payable to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

11.The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.

¶30

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar

¶31

/True Copy/
Sub.Asst.Registrar
sai
To
1. The Director-General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-4.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
City Police Office,
Chennai City, Chennai-8.
+ 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.47369
+ 2 ccs to M/s. Sudha Ravi, Advocate Sr.47219
W.P.13584 & 13585/2007
KSJ(CO)
Eu 19.8.11

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Venkatesan v. Director -General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Venkatesan v. Director -General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Muthusaravanan Vs District Educational Officer

M.Ganesan Vs the Principal

Tvl.Sendamarai Steels, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

S.Jeyakumar, Vs the Director of School

C.Thirugnanasambandam, Vs the Joint Registrar

A.Esakkimuthu Vs State of Tamil Nadu