Allowed

K.Krishnaveni v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC23 Oct 2019WP(MD)/19711/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Finger Print). Relying on a previous batch order, the Court held that eye vision conditions, which can be rectified by technology, cannot be an absolute bar when not stipulated in the notification.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Additional Director General of Police dishonouring candidature was set aside and petitioner directed to be considered for appointment if otherwise eligible.

K.Krishnaveni Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.19711/2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.10.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI W.P.(MD) No.19711 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.16187, 16190 and 16192 of 2019

¶6

K.Krishnaveni ... Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

1.State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat

¶9

Chennai 600 009

¶10

2.The Chairman

¶11

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus

¶12

Egmore, Chennai 8

¶13

3.The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus

¶14

Egmore, Chennai – 8

¶15

4.The Director General of Police

¶16

Office of the Director General of Police Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 004

¶17

5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Technical Services),

¶18

Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police Chennai – 4

¶19

6.The Additional Director General of Police State Crime Records Bureau Chennai ... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 6^th respondent vide his Proceedings in Rc.No.A1/46/617/SCRB/2019, dated 15.03.2019 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Finger Print) within the time https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stipulated by this Court.

¶21

1/4

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.19711/2019

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thangaraj For Respondents : Mr.K.Chella Pandian learned Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is challenging the order of the sixth respondent, dated 15.03.2019, treating the petitioner as 'Unfit' for selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Finger Print).

¶26

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no stipulation of eye power in the Notification for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Finger Print) and it does not prescribe any visual standards. The respondents deleted the name of the petitioner from the provisional list. The learned counsel further contended that this issue was already decided by this Court in W.P(MD).No.5441 of 2019 etc. batch case and this Court allowed the said batch and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Technical) and (Finger Print), in which, Paragraph Nos.17 & 18 read as follows:

¶27

“17.In view of the foregoing reasons as well as taking into consideration the pitiable situation of the petitioners, whose candidatures were rejected due to lack of eye-vision, which can be rectified owing to technology ason-today, and they are functioning like any other person normally, this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned order, as it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the candidatures of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Technical) and (Finger Print) 2018, if they are otherwise found eligible. 18.While parting with the cases at hand, this Court hereby directs the respondents to include any such conditions as prescribed under the relevant Rules and the Government orders at the time of issuing notification itself in future, so that, this type of causing hurdles to the candidates, who applied on the fond hope that they will get appointment, may not arise”.

¶28

3.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has relied on paragraph- Nos.13 and 14 of W.P(MD). No.5441 of 2019 etc. batch which read as follows:

¶29

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

¶30

2/4

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.19711/2019

¶32

“13.On the contrary, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents pointed out that as per G.O.Ms.No.1221, Home (Police.9) Department, dated 10.11.2000, the prescribed conditions came to be introduced for the police force. If that is so, nothing prevented the respondents from including such conditions even at the time of calling for the applications, so as to give opportunity to the applicants to equip themselves to be fit for the post in question. More than one decade has passed by and no efforts have been taken by the respondents to include this G.O.Ms.No.1221, Home (Police.9) Department, dated 10.11.2000, particularly, the eye vision prescribed thereunder as one of the factors to decide the candidature for the post in question. More importantly, the respondents sail in paragraph Nos.11and 12 of the counter-affidavit filed in W.P(MD). No.4758 of 2019 to sustain their point. However, there is not even a word uttered with regard to the eye vision pointed out by the respondents.

¶33

14.It is settled law that a physical defect or deformity, which in no way interfere with the normal or efficient functioning, should not be considered as an absolute bar to public employment in regard to the posts not associated with physical activity”.

¶34

4.The reasons stated in the above order are squarely applicable to the present case on hand and the issue raised by the petitioner in the present Writ petition is covered by the said W.P (MD).No.5441 of 2019 etc. batch. The reliance placed by the learned Additional Advocate General on paras Nos. 13 and 14 does not advance the case of the respondents.

¶35

5.In view of the same, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar (AD)

¶38

// True Copy //

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶40

Msa

¶41

¶42

1.The Principal Secretary

¶43

State of Tamil Nadu Home Department, Secretariat Chennai 600 009

¶44

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

¶45

3/4

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.19711/2019

¶47

2.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus Egmore, Chennai 8 3.The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus Egmore, Chennai – 8 4.The Director General of Police Office of the Director General of Police Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 004 5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Technical Services), Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police Chennai – 4 6.The Additional Director General of Police State Crime Records Bureau Chennai +1 CC to Mr.S.THANGARAJ, Advocate ( SR-94443[F] dated 24/10/2019 ) +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-94270[F] dated 24/10/2019 ) W.P.(MD) No.19711 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.16187, 16190 and 16192 of 2019 23.10.2019 VB(25.11.2019) 4P 9C

¶48

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

¶49

4/4

K.Krishnaveni v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Krishnaveni v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Augustin Vs the Secretary to Government

N.Mahalakshmi Vs the Commissioner of Municipal

R.Ganapathy Murugan Vs the Secretary to Goverment

N.R.Ravanth Vs the Deputy Secretary

Arulmurugan Vs the Director of School

K.Subbiah Vs State of Tamil Nadu