Allowed

Er.N.Raghavendran v. the Management

Madras HC11 Nov 2013REV.APPL/192/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a review petition held before it, directing the Government of Puducherry to appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police under the EBC category. The court held that failing to reserve 2% despite a post-based roster denied the petitioner a fair opportunity to appointment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police under EBC category within eight weeks without disturbing existing appointments.

Er.N.Raghavendran Vs the Management — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.02.2016

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶8

Rev.Appl.No.192 of 2013 in

¶9

W.P.No.35423 of 2012

¶10

M.Coumar

¶11

..... Appellant/Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY.

¶14

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE DEPARTMENT, PUDUCHERRY.

¶15

THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (HOME) GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY.

¶16

4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (HQ) POLICE DEPARTMENT, PUDUCHERRY.

¶17

MR.GOVINDARAJAN.A (ROLL NO.104088) POLICE DEPARTMENT, PUDUCHERRY.

¶18

MR.JAYAGURUNATHAN.V (ROLL NO.102660) POLICE DEPARTMENT, PUDUCHERRY.

¶19

¶20

THE REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, CHENNAI-104

¶21

..... Respondents Respondents

¶22

Review Petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C. to review the order dated 04.10.2013 passed in W.P.No.35423 of 2012 and consequently allow the writ petition.

¶23

For Review Petitioner : Mr.Parthiban Padmanaban for M/s. Sai Bharath & Ilan For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.P.Syed Mustafa, AGP (P)

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.)

¶26

This review petition is filed seeking to review the order passed in the writ petition in W.P.No.35423 of 2012, dated 04.10.2013, wherein and whereby, this Court dismissed the petition filed by the review petitioner herein. The said writ petition was filed, challenging the order made in O.A.No.383 of 2011, dated 09.10.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. The said O.A. was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the advertisement dated 18.11.2010 and the consequential selection of the appointment of 5th and 6th respondents and for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4, to re-

¶27

¶28

consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of Sub Inspector of Police by strictly adhering to the 2% reservation as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.9/2010, dated 28.08.2010. The Tribunal dismissed the OA on the ground that the petitioner participated in the selection and therefore, he is not entitled to challenge the notification as well as the selection of the respondents 5 and 6. In the writ petition, when the said order was challenged, this Court, after observing that only 40 vacancies were available and one post will be made available to the EBC candidates only when the number of posts are more than 50, held that there is no scope for reserving 2% for EBC candidates. Thus, based on the said reasoning, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶29

Now, the present review petition is filed by contending that there is

¶30

an error apparent on the face of the record since the roster to be followed in this case is only a Post Based roster and not Vacancy Based one and therefore the reason for the dismissal of the writ petition that it is vacancy based roster is factually not correct. Thus it is contended that if the Post Based roster is followed, automatically the respondents are bound to follow and reserve 2% reservation for EBC candidates as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 28.08.2010 especially when they, admittedly, followed other two G.Os. in respect of Backward Class Muslims and Backward Tribes. Therefore, it is

¶31

¶32

contended by the review petitioner that having chosen to follow two other G.Os. in respect of those two categories, the respondents 1 to 4 are not justified in not following another G.O. favouring EBC candidates by granting 2% reservation. Therefore, it is contended that if 2% is reserved for EBC candidates, the petitioner, being the candidate coming under such category and also standing first in the said category, is automatically entitled to get appointment.

¶33

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing by this Bench on 15.09.2015, the learned Government Pleader, based on instructions, submitted that a letter to the Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) Pondicherry dated 05.09.2015 was addressed by the learned Government Pleader appraising the matter in detail. Thus he sought further two weeks time so that the authorities can come out with a favourable order on the review petitioner. Accordingly, this matter was adjourned to 15.10.2015 on which day the learned Government

¶34

Pleader again took time. Consequently, the matter was adjourned to 29.10.2015, on which day the learned Government Pleader submitted that file concerning the promotion of the review applicant has been sent from the Law Department to the Inspector General of Police, who in turn has to pass a positive order at any moment, after his return from Delhi. Therefore, he sought further four weeks time finally to report. This court, after recording

¶35

¶36

the above said submissions, adjourned the matter by four weeks so as to enable the respondents to pass the order and report before this court. Today, when the matter is taken up for further hearing, it is stated that no order is passed so far. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced the file. He also conceded to the fact that the order dated 03.07.2014 of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.507 of 2011, filed by another person by name A.Madurai has not been challenged and the findings rendered therein has become final, conclusive and binding the parties.

¶37

4.Perusal of the files as well as the order passed in the above said O.A. would show that the contentions raised by the review petitioner is justified and that the respondents, by not reserving 2% for the EBC category while notifying for filling up the post, have denied the opportunity of the petitioner to get such post, when admittedly the petitioner is falling under such category and also stated to be listed as first. Learned Government Pleader also fairly conceded to

¶38

the position that the roster to be followed in this case is only a Post Based roster and not vacancy Post one. Further perusal of the file would also indicate that the contention of the review petitioner is found to be on merit, prima facie. It is also seen from the file notings that the respondents are waiting for

¶39

this court to pass an order instead of appointing the petitioner as communicated by the Government Pleader.

¶40

¶41

5.For proper appreciation of the factual aspect of the roster reservation, the findings rendered by the Tribunal in the above said order, more particularly, at paragraph 8 may be relevant to be noted. It reads as follows:

¶42

"It is seen that while in the Notification dated 18.11.2010 (Annexure A(4) calling for applications for filling up of 41 vacancies of SIs of Police, the category-wise break-up indicated was General-14, OBC-7,MBC-10, SC-10, in the Corrigendum, dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure A/1). the break up was specified as General - 12, OBC-6, MBC-10,BCM-2, EBC-NIl, SC-10 and BT-1. For Ex-serviceman, horizontal reservation of 10% was provided, vide the two GOs. of 28.08.2010 issued by the Government of Puducherry, out of the MCB quota of 20%, 2% was earmarked for fisherman community, which was declared as EBC and out of the OBC quota of 13%, 2% was earmarked for BC Musilms, the total quota for OBC with MBC totally being 33% vide ID Note/Memorandum issued by the Government of Puducherry, dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure A/3), instructions were issued to Heads of Departments/Offices to prepare revised Post-based rosters as per the Model Roster enclosed in the Model Roster, EBC 1 and 2 were shown at 51th and 102th place while BCM-1 and 2 were shown at 50th and 101th place. On the basis, it would be appear that EBC candidate could be selected against the 51th place in the Roster only if 51 vacancies are filling up and inasmuch as only 41 posts were to be filled up, no EBC candidates could be selected under 2% quota. However, in the case of BCMs, in the Corrigendum, 2 vacancies were shown for being filled up. This has not been explained by the Respondents. Further, the Respondents have indicated that other

¶43

¶44

candidates belonging to fisherman category had been selected under general category itself and that in future, while recruiting SIs of Police, separate reservation for EBC as per G.O.Ms.No.9/2010/WEL/SW-V, dated 28.08.2010 would be considered. When a quota of 2% has been specified for EBC category, the plea that it need not be filled up if candidates belonging to fisherman category have been selected in the general category, is not tenable."

¶45

Therefore, now it is to be seen as to whether the action of the respondents, without notifying 2% for the EBC category even though a Government Order was made to that effect in G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 28.08.2010, is justified when admittedly the roster to be followed in this case is post based one and not vacancy based, as observed by this court while dismissing the writ

¶46

petition. It is not in dispute that the said G.O. was passed earlier to the notification issued by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the respondents have chosen to follow the other two G.Os. in respect of reservation to Most Backward Muslims and Backward Tribes. Therefore, in all fairness, the respondents 1 to 4 ought to have followed G.O.Ms.No.9 also in respect of EBC candidates. Failure to follow the said G.O.No.9 and notify the 2% reservation for EBC category has, certainly, resulted in denial of a fair opportunity of

¶47

appointment to the petitioner.

¶48

¶49

Therefore, considering all these aspects we find that the petitioner is

¶50

entitled to succeed in this review. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to appoint the petitioner in

¶51

the post of Sub Inspector of Police under EBC category without disturbing the

¶52

appointment of respondents 5 and 6 and pass such an order, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶53

(M.M.S.J.,) (K.R.C.B.J.,)

¶54

Index : Yes Internet : Yes smi

02.02.2016

To,

THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY.

¶59

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE DEPARTMENT, PUDUCHERRY.

¶60

THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (HOME) GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY.

¶61

4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (HQ) POLICE DEPARTMENT, PUDUCHERRY.

¶62

MR.GOVINDARAJAN.A (ROLL NO.104088) POLICE DEPARTMENT, PUDUCHERRY.

¶63

MR.JAYAGURUNATHAN.V (ROLL NO.102660) POLICE DEPARTMENT, PUDUCHERRY.

¶64

THE REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, CHENNAI-104

¶65

¶66

M.M.SUNDARESH, J. and K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.

¶67

smi/vri

¶68

Rev.Appl.No.192 of 2013

¶69

02.02.2016

Er.N.Raghavendran v. the Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Er.N.Raghavendran v. the Management

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

Prof. Saraswathi Govindaraj Vs the Secretary to Government

United India Ins.Co.Ltd Vs Murugesan

Mr.George Vs Mr.S.Kannan

M.Vetri Selvan, Advocate Vs Union of India

The State Rep by Secretary Vs G.Karunairaj

Mariappan Vs the Inspector of Police