This writ petition challenged orders rejecting the petitioner's repeated representations to undergo police training despite prior selection. The court held that repeated representations did not improve the case and noted the lapse of over 15 years since selection.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.NO.5696 OF 2007 (O.A.NO.6453 OF 2002)
M.Selvam .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by Secretary to Government
Home (Police III) Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police
Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Commandant
Tamil Nadu Special Police II Batallion
Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. .. Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.6453 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to (1) C.No.201418/Rect.3/2001, dated 15.10.2001; (2) C.No.47385/Rect.3/2002 dated 03.04.2002 and (3) C.No.108372(X)/Rect.3/2002, dated 31.07.2002, quash the same and issue direction to the respondents to depute the petitioner for training, pursuant to his appointment as Police Constable Grade – II.
The petitioner applied for the post of Police Constable Grade – II in the Tamil Nadu Police Service for the year 1992-1993. He was successful in the selection process and he was selected by an order dated 08.05.1999 of the third respondent.
2.After selection, the petitioner was directed to report for training before the Principal, Police Training School, Salem on 24.05.1999. However, the petitioner did not report for training. He made a representation to the respondents stating that due to some unforeseen family circumstances and illness, he did not join the Police Training School at Salem.
3.A lenient view was taken and the petitioner was deputed for training to the Police Training School at Tuticorin from 05.05.2000 vide proceedings dated 26.04.2000 of the third respondent.
4.This time again, the petitioner did not report to the said training. Instead he made a representation to send him for training. The said representation was rejected by an order dated 24.04.2001.
5.Again the petitioner made a representation. The same was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 15.10.2001.
6.The petitioner made a further representation to the second respondent to permit him to undergo training. The same was rejected by the second respondent vide order dated 03.04.2002.
7.Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the Honourable Chief Minister. The same was forwarded to the second respondent for consideration and the second respondent rejected the same on 31.07.2002.
8.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid orders and also sought for a direction to permit him to undergo training.
9.According to the petitioner, he met with a road accident and he was hospitalised and hence, he was not able to join the Police Training School on 05.05.2000.
10.No records relating to the road accident such as FIR and hospital records are enclosed in the typed set of papers. Earlier, an order dated 24.04.2001 was passed rejecting his representation. The same is also not enclosed in the typed set and no challenge is made to the same.
11.In my view, repeated representations could not improve the case of the petitioner. The respondents had shown leniency and twice permitted him to undergo training. But the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity. Further, it is relating to the selection for the year 1999. Now more than 15 years have elapsed. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents.
12.Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs.
tk
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
Dt:15/12/2014
True Copy
Sub-Assitant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Home (Police III) Department
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police
Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Commandant
Tamil Nadu Special Police II Battalion
Avadi,
Chennai – 600 054.
+ 1 cc to Govt. Pleader SR 57502
+ 1 cc to Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate SR 57418
km(co)
prk17/12
W.P.NO.5696 OF 2007
(O.A.NO.6453 OF 2002)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether repeated representations by the petitioner could improve his case regarding non-availability of training opportunities after multiple rejections.
Whether infirmity exists in the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner's requests for training deputation.
Whether the writ petition succeeds in quashing the orders or directing the respondents to permit the petitioner's training.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Selvam
State of Tamil Nadu
Director General of Police
Commandant Tamil Nadu Special Police II Battalion
D. Hariparamathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
