The petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable (Armed Reserve) in Kanyakumari District on 12.10.1976. He was promoted as Head Constable on 27.11.1984 in Armed Reserve, Nagercoil. On his request, he was transferred to Taluk Police Station as Grade II Police Constable on 06.10.1986. He sought pay protection of Head Constable in the transferred place as he was posted as Grade II Police Constable. Since the same was not conceded, he filed an Original Application in O.A.No.5081 of 1992 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), seeking either he should be transferred to Armed Reserve as Head Constable or his last pay drawn as Head Constable in Armed Reserve should be protected.
2.The Tribunal passed an order dated 29.10.1992 in O.A.No.5081 of 1992, directing the respondent to allow him in his former cadre without loss of seniority, because he was continuing in service and the period he had served outside his cadre in effect was in the nature of deputation.
3.Accordingly, he was transferred to Armed Reserve as Head Constable by an order dated 05.01.1996 and his pay was also regulated in the cadre of Head Constable.
4.Again, he filed another Original Application in O.A.No.7473 of 1999 before the Tribunal, praying for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on par with his juniors and batchmates viz., Mr.P.Natarajan, Mr.Lakshmanan, Mr.A.George, Mr.Karuppasamy, Mr.Vincent and Mr.Thampiraj. According to the petitioner, his juniors were included in the "C" list of Head Constable (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 1991-1992.
5.Admittedly, the petitioner was working in the Taluk Police Station in 1991 and hence his name was not considered for promotion along with his batchmates.
6.However, the Tribunal in the order dated 10.12.1999 in O.A.No.7473 of 1999, directed the Director General of Police, the second respondent herein, to dispose of the petitioner's representation in this regard within a period of six months.
7.The Director General of Police, passed an order dated 03.04.2000 to conduct special test for the petitioner for his promotion to the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 1991-1992.
8.In the meantime, the petitioner appeared for the tests conducted on 10.07.2000 and 18.07.2000 for the regular selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2000. He was selected in the selection process and he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) with effect from 01.08.2000. After 1991-1992, the selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police took place in the year 2000, in the Armed Reserve.
9.Based on the aforesaid order dated 03.04.2000 of the Director General of Police, the first respondent issued an order dated 20.10.2000 directing the petitioner to appear for the special test to be conducted on 24.10.2000.
10.In response to the above, the petitioner sent a reply dated 22.10.2000 to the respondent stating that his promotion in the year 2000 after undergoing the selection process could be taken as the selection process for the year 1991-1992 also and he should be promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police along with his batchmates from 1991-1992.
11.However, the respondent did not agree to such a request of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 06.06.2001, stating that since he did not participate in the special test on 24.10.2000, he could not be considered for promotion in the "C" list of Sub-Inspector of Police, for the year 1991-1992.
12.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A.No.262 of 2002 before the Tribunal to quash the same.
13.In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.5266 of 2007.
14.Heard the submissions made by Ms.Jasmine for Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
15.The Director General of Police decided to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion along with his batchmates for the 1991-1992 panel itself and for the said purpose, he also passed an order dated 03.04.2000 to conduct a special test. Therefore, taking into account the fact that the petitioner was not able to participate in the selection process along with his batchmates during the year 1991-1992 as he was in the Taluk Police Station, the Director General of Police agreed to hold a special test for the petitioner.
16.As stated above, the petitioner faced the selection process and appeared for the necessary tests on 10.07.2000 and 18.07.2000 for the promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2000. He was successful in those tests and was selected and promoted in August 2000.
17.In these circumstances, the petitioner having participated in the selection process for the year 2000, the same could be taken as the selection for the year 1991-1992. But the first respondent refused to do so, as if the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to come for the special test that was to be held on 24.10.2000. On the other hand, the plea of the petitioner was that by the time he was asked to appear for the special test, he was already underwent the selection process and was successful in the selection for the same post of Sub-Inspector.
18.Therefore, the first respondent was not correct in stating that he was not willing to participate in the special test to be conducted on 24.10.2000. Thus, the impugned order dated 06.06.2001 of the first respondent was passed without application of mind.
19.As indicated above, since it was decided by the Director General of Police to permit him to undergo a special test, the test which he underwent in the year 2000 could be taken as the test for 1991-1992 also. The request of the petitioner to take the selection process that took place in the year 2000 as the selection process for 1991-1992 is correct and justified. Now the first respondent states that the pattern of test in the year 1991-1992 was different from the test that were conducted in the selection in the year 2000. However, no such reason was given in the impugned order dated 06.06.2001. Further, as the petitioner underwent the selection process in 2000, it is not fair to ask him to again appear for a special test for the very same post.
20.In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 06.06.2001 of the first respondent is set aside and the first respondent is directed to accord appropriate place in the 1991-1992 panel prepared for persons fit for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by granting all notional benefits.
21.However, it is made clear that since it is the own making of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to consequential monetary benefits and is only entitled to notional benefits.
22.In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
20.08.2009 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TK To To
1.The Superintendent of Police District Police Office Nagercoil.
2.The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
TK W.P.No.5266 of 2007 20.08.2009