Allowed

M.B.Gowtham v. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services

Madras HC8 Sept 2023WP/8890/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a petition for certiorarified mandamus seeking to quash the rejection order against the petitioner's candidature as Sub-Inspector of Police (Technical) due to vision status. Quashing the impugned order, it directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's eligibility for the post within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.02.2019 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment within twelve weeks.

M.B.Gowtham Vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.8890 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.09.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.No.8890 of 2019

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos. 9438 & 9440 of 2019

M.B.Gowtham

.. Petitioner

1.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services

¶13

Recruitment Board,

¶14

Pantheon Road, Egmore,

¶15

Chennai – 600 008

¶16

Rep. By its Member Secretary.

¶17

2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶18

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Technical Services, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶19

4.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy – 620 020.

¶20

5.The Additional Director General of Police, TNPA, Oonamanchery, Chennai – 600 048.

¶21

.. Respondents

¶22

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶23

praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling the records of the third respondent pertaining to his order made in

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

1/6

¶26

W.P.No.8890 of 2019

¶27

Rc.No.A3/12200/2018 dated 22.02.2019 and quash the same, consequent to direct the respondent 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police (Technical) 2018 with all attendant benefits at par with the selected and appointed candidates.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma

¶29

For Respondents : Mr.R.Neethi Perumal Government Advocate

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking records of the third respondent dated 22.02.2019 made in Rc.No.A3/12200/2018 and quash the same, consequently direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police (Technical) 2018 with all attendant benefits at par with the selected and appointed candidates.

¶32

Heard Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Neethi Perumal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶33

Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge 2/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.8890 of 2019

¶36

of this Court in a batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P.(MD) No.5441 of 2019 batch [M.Salai Gayathri v The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 09 dated 30.04.2019] wherein, considering the very same issue of rejection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Technical) consequent to the vision status of the petitioner's therein, learned Single Judge had finally held as follows:-

¶37

“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 as-on-today, and they are functioning like any other person normally, this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned orders, 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 SubInspector of Police (Technical) and (Finger Print) 2018, if they are otherwise found eligible.”

¶38

It is also stated that the said directions of the learned Single Judge had been confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.Nos.658 to 660 of 2020 batch [The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai v. S.Priya Dharsini and others, dated 01.07.2021] and in yet another decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.A.(MD) Nos. 941 to 953 of 2020 [The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

3/6

¶41

W.P.No.8890 of 2019

¶42

Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai v M.Salai Gayathri dated 15.02.2021] .

¶43

It is thus seen that the case of the petitioner is directly covered by the aforementioned decisions and the ratio is applicable as the petitioner was declared successful in the written examination and also in viva voce. The only reason the petitioner was not appointed as Sub-Inspector was that his vision, according to the respondents, was not of the required level for him to be considered for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police (Technical) but, however, as directed by the learned Single Judge (referred supra), and affirmed by the Division Bench, the petitioner can always be appointed in the Fingerprint / Technical or in any other posts as stated in the said judgments. The respondents are directed to follow the dictum laid down in the said judgments.

¶44

Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Technical) and (Fingerprint) / 2018, if he is otherwise found eligible. The said exercise should be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

4/6

¶47

W.P.No.8890 of 2019

¶48

Writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected

¶49

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶50

08.09.2023

¶51

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssm

¶52

¶53

1.The Member Secretary. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008

¶54

2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶55

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Technical Services, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶56

4.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy – 620 020.

¶57

5.The Additional Director General of Police, TNPA, Oonamanchery, Chennai – 600 048.

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

5/6

¶60

W.P.No.8890 of 2019

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

ssm

W.P.No.8890 of 2019

08.09.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

6/6

M.B.Gowtham v. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.B.Gowtham v. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services

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

Jangathe Vinod Maroti Vs The Union of India

S.Gomathiammal Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Muthukumaravel Vs The Secretary to Government

J.RubanCharles Vs The Thasildar

Francis Xavier, Vs The Union of India

V.Kannapurakannan Vs R.Selvaraj IAS