In the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Appellate Jurisdiction) Friday, the Twenty Eighth day of March Two Thousand and Eight PRESENT The Honourable Mr.Justice S.J.Mukhopadhaya and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.Venugopal Writ Appeal Nos. 194 to 199, 317, 318 of 2008 and 1598 to 1602, 1607 to 1610, 1563, 1583 and 1584 of 2007 & connected Miscellaneous Petitions M.Arul Manimaran ..Appellant in WA No.194/08 (Petitioner) Kamalakannan ..Appellant in WA 195/08 (Petitioner) R.Sundararajan ..Appellant in WA 196/2008 (Petitioner) M.Prabhu ..Appellant in WA 197/2008 (Petitioner) R.Deenadayalan ..Appellant in WA 198/2008 (Petitioner) P.Sudhan ..Appellant in WA 199/08 (Petitioner) A.Aruncharles ..Appellant in WA 317/08 R.Ramkumar ..Appellant in WA 318/2008 A.G.Chandrasekaran ..Appellant in WA 1598/07 S.Rathina Kumar ..Appellant in WA 1599/07 (Petitioner) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R.Ponnuswamy ..Appellant in WA 1600/07 (Petitioner) C.Ramnath ..Appellant in WA 1601/07 (Petitioner) S.Thiruvengadam ..Appellant in WA 1602/07 (Petitioner) C.P.Saravanan ..Appellant in WA 1607/07 (Petitioner) V.Prabhudass ..Appellant in WA 1608/07 (Petitioner) S.Mohanraj ..Appellant in WA 1609/07 (Petitioner) Balakumaran ..Appellant in WA No.1610/07 (Petitioner) S.Parani Ramalingam ..Appellant in WA 1563/07 (Petitioner) J.Kuppuraj ..Appellant in WA 1583/07 (Petitioner) V.Kamalakannan ..Appellant in WA 1584/07 (Petitioner) vs. The Secretary to Government, Home (Police IV) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. ... ISt Respondent in W.A.194/08, 195/08, 196/08 197/08, 199/08, 318/08 1598/07, 1599/07, 1600/07 1601/07, 1602/07, 1607/07 1608/07, 1609/07, 1610/07. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Director General of Police/ The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. ... 2nd Respondent in W.A.194/08, 195/08, 196/08, 197/08, 198/08, 199/08, 317/08, 318/08, 1598/07, 1599/07, 1600/07, 1601/07, 1602/07, 1607/07, 1608/07, 1609/07, 1610/07, and Ist respondent in W.P.1563/07, 1583/07, 1584/07 The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. .. 3rd Respondent in W.A.No.194 of 2008, 195/08, 196/08, 197/08, 199/08, 317/08, 318/08, 1598/07, 1599/07, 1600/07, 1601/07, 1602/07, 1607/07, 1608/07, 1609/07, 1610/07 and 2nd Respondent in 1563/07, 1583/07, 1584/07 and Ist respondent in W.A.198/08 The Secretary to Government Home (Police II) Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9 ... ISt Respondent in W.A.317/08 P. Rajendran Vibhakarsharma sukla Lakshmi Prasad ... Respondents 3 to 6 in W.A.1563/07, 1584/07 Appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the Honourable Mr. Justice K. Venkataraman dated 20.11.2007 and made in the exercise of the Special Original Jurisdiction of the High Court in Writ Petition Nos.31225/07, 32119/07, 26637/07, 33198/07, 28707/07, 23692/07, 26048/07 30189/07, 26185/07, 26188/07, 28710/07, 29115/07, 33376/07 26184/07, 33197/07, 32225/07, 28975/07, 30358/07 and 32173/07 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the order of the Honourable Mr.Justice K.Chandru in WP.No.35682/2007 dated 26.11.2007 respectively presented to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of (1) Declaration (a) declaring that the provisional select list published by the second Respondent on 17.07.2007 fr recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police, (Men - Open Market Quota 2006 is null and void and further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police under 80% Open Market candidate Quota and grant - all consequential benefits (WP.No.31225/07 and 32225/07) (b) declaring that the provisional list published by the second respondent on 17.07.2007 for recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2006 is null and void and further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under 20% Quota for Departmental candidates (WP.32119/07) and grant all consequential benefits. (c) declaring that the provisional select list published by the 2nd respondent on 17.07.2007 for recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police (Men - Department Quota) 2006 is null and void and direct the respondent to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police under 20% department candidates Quota and grant all consequential benefits (WP.No.26637/07 33198/07, 26185/07, 26188/07 28710/07, 33376/07, 26184/07, 33197/07. (d) declaring that the publication published on 09.04.2007 for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2006 is null and void and further direct the respondents to publish the results in respect of the 10% wards quota and consider the claim of the candidates respectively (WP.23692/07) (e) declaring that the provisional select list published by the 2nd respondent on 17.07.2007 for recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police (men and Women) 2006 is null and void and further direct the respondent to select and appoint the petitioner as the Sub- Inspector of Police under 10% wards Quota and grant all consequential benefits (WP.26048/07) (e) declaring that the provisional select list published by the second respondent for recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police (Men - Direct Quota) 2006 is null and void and consequently direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police under direct Quato (WP.30189/07) f) declaring that the provisional select list published by the 2nd respondent on 17.7.2007 for recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police (men) 2006 is null and void and further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10% wards quota candidates and grant all consequential benefits (WP 29115/07, 35682/07) g) To declare the petitioners non selection (register No.1000030) for the recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (men and women) for the year 2006 as issued in the selection list and his non deputation for the medical examination and further process of selection as illegal, null and void and to consequently issue directions to the respondents to depute the petitioner to medical examination and police verification and if found fit to select him for appointment as Sub Inspector of Police (men) for the year 2006 and appoint him as such with retrospective effect from the date of appointment of his immediate Junior with all consequential service and monetary benefits (WP.28975/07, 32173/07) II certiorarified mandamus (a) Calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned orders passed by him in C.No.D1/2906/2007 dt 14.8.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents to call the petitioner for the vive voce examination and appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police based on the selection conducted for the year 2006 (WP.28707/07) (b) calling for the records relating to the entire selection process for recruitment of Sub Inspectors of Police Men and Women 2006, quash the non selection of the Petitioner under the 10% allotted as Wards Quota and the consequential order in Rc.No.D1/2658/2007 dt 28.8.2007, and issue consequential directions to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner (Register No.1001862) under the quota 10% reserved of police (men for the year 2006. (W.P.30358/07) Order: These Writ Appeals coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the grounds of Appeals the order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataraman, dated 20.11.2007 and made in the exercise of the special Original Jurisdiction of the High Court in W.P.Nos.31225, 32119, 26637, 33198, 28707, 23692, 26048, 30189, 26185, 26188, 28710, 29115, 33376, 26184, 33197, 32225, 28975 and 30358/07 and the order of Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru dated 26.11.2007 in W.P.No.35682/07 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.K. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.Muthappan in W.A.Nos.194 to 199/08, 1598 to 1602/07, 1607 to 1610/07 and of Mr.K. Selvaraj, Advocate for the Appellant in W.A.317 and 318/08 and of Mr.M. Ravi, Advocate for the Appellant in W.A.1563, 1583 and 1584/07 and of Mr.D. Sreenivasan, Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the State the Court made the following order:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Common Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J The Writ Appeals relate to the appointment to the post of Sub- Inspector of Police. The appellants/Writ Petitioners applied for appointment to the said post, pursuant to the Notification in question, but having not been recommended for appointment, they preferred these Writ Appeals, either challenging the total selection or praying for their appointment or for similar other reliefs. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.14482 of 2007 etc. batch cases, by the impugned common order dated 20.11.2007, giving rise to the present Writ Appeals filed by the appellants/Writ Petitioners. In the aforesaid background, the Writ Appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As the learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for the appellants limited their arguments with regard to the direct interview (viva-voce test) and marks allotted towards special certificates/sports/games, it is not necessary to discuss all the other submissions as were raised before the Writ Court and for that, we are referring only the following relevant facts for proper adjudication of the Writ Appeals: (i) Pursuant to Notification in Na.Ka.A1.No.2626/2006, calling for applications for appointment of male/female Sub-Inspectors of Police (for shot, S.I. of Police) in the Tamil Nadu Police Service, the appellants/Writ Petitioners applied along with others. In the advertisement/prospectus, the respondents prescribed the procedure for selection, which consisted of the following stages: (i) Certificate(s) verification; (ii) Physical measurement test; (iii) Endurance test; (iv) Physical efficient test; (v) Written test; (vi) Direct interview (Viva-voce test) and (vii) Medical test (for selected candidates). The candidates were informed through the advertisement/prospectus the marks allotted for different tests, as shown hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Name of the test Marks (i) Physical efficiency test 15 (ii) Written test (General Knowledge) in the specified manner (Tamil/English) 45 (iii) Written Test / Psychology Test (Tamil /English) 25 (iv) Direct interview (viva-voce) 10 (v) Other certificates(NCC/NSS & Sports) 5 Total 100 The selection was conducted through the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (for short, 'Recruitment Board') for filling up of 682 vacancies of S.I. of Police by direct recruitment. (ii) An Officer in the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police was designated as Sub-Committee Chairman with one member in the rank of Superintendent of Police/DC and two other members in the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police/ADC and Deputy Superintendent of Police/AC, were entrusted to supervise the entire process of selection. One super-check officer in the rank of Inspector General of Police was also nominated with instructions to make surprise check of the measurement of height, chest and also the other tests for effective recruitment process. (iii) In the said Notification, it was also informed that only the selected candidates will be informed of their selection and no individual intimation will be sent to those who were not selected. (iv) The recruitment process was conducted in a phased manner between 30.3.2007 and 11.4.2007 in several batches, giving adequate and sufficient timing to the candidates to complete the tests. The candidates who had qualified in the certificate verification test, physical measurement test, endurance test and physical efficiency test, were called for the written test on 20.5.2007. The persons who had qualified themselves in the written test, were called for the direct interview/viva-voce test. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) The select lists were published in the Internet and a press-note to that effect was also issued. The candidates who asked for details of marks scored by them, were also provided with information. Apart from the panel, a waiting list was also drawn up to accommodate candidates in case any candidate failed in the medical examination or the police verification or declining the offer of appointment. 3. Though it was a direct recruitment, apart from reservations on the basis of caste, 20% of the posts was reserved for direct recruitment from amongst the departmental candidates (Police Department), who were already working in the lower posts. For the wards of the employees of the Police Department, out of the rest 80%, 10% of the posts was provided. In included only those who are dependent on the employees, such as dependent son, daughter etc. 4. Before this Court in the Writ Appeals, the majority of the appellants/Writ Petitioners are departmental candidates who applied against 20% quota; there are one or other appellant who claimed appointment as "wards" and there is also one or other appellant who claimed appointment on direct recruitment as outsiders. 5. From the impugned common order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.14482 of 2007, etc. batch cases, dated 20.11.2007 it would be evident that the appellants/Writ Petitions challenged the selection on the ground that the written examination was not conducted properly or the quota of each category was not followed or proper marking for certificate including sports, has not been made, which were classified by the learned single Judge, as follows: "(a) The Written examination was not conducted properly and sought for cancellation of the written examination and conduct fresh examination; (b) 20% Departmental candidate quota was not published and selections have not been made for full 20% departmental candidate quota; (c) 10% earmarked for the wards of the police personnel was not published separately and that 10% reserved for dependents category has not been filled up. (d) S.C. & S.T. quota has not been filled up as per the advertisement made. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (e) Absolutely, there is no transparency in the selection. (f) Marks have not been awarded for the sports certificates. (g) In the viva-voce, though answered well, they have been given less marks." 6. As stated above, however, before this Court in the Writ Appeals, the learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for the appellants confined their argument in regard to direct interview (viva-voce test) and the marks granted for certificates/sports (NSS, NCC, sports, games, etc.) and made the following submissions: (i) There was no transparency for giving marks towards the direct interview (viva-voce test). Though most of the appellants obtained better marks in the physical efficiency test and written test and fairly did well in the viva-voce test also by giving reply to almost all the questions, but, with a view to exclude them, they have been provided with lower marks in the viva-voce test and those who obtained lower marks than the appellants in the written test and the physical efficiency test, have been selected and appointed by providing them with higher marks in the viva-voce test. In support of their stand, the learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the data to show that some persons have been provided with higher marks in the viva-voce test, with a view to select them, though they have obtained lower marks than the appellants in the written test and physical efficiency test. (ii) In the advertisement/prospectus, it was only shown that '5' marks will be provided for certificates such as NSS, NCC and sports. Though most of the appellants have produced NSS, NCC and/or sports certificates, but with a view to eliminate them, no marks have been given to them towards the "certificates". The so-called marks as allotted towards different certificates, as highlighted by the respondents before the learned single Judge, were "after-thought", as no such decision was taken by the State Government or the competent authority to provide such marks for different certificates. It was submitted that the Selection Board/Committee had no jurisdiction to specify separate marks for "certificates" (NSS, NCC or sports), when once the marks allotted for such "Certificates" is specified in the advertisement/prospectus itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ According to the learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for the appellants, even as per the special marks allotted for different "certificates", as stated by the respondents, many of the appellants were entitled for more marks, but they have not been given such marks for different "certificates". 7. In support of their stand that the appellants should have been provided with more marks for different subjects, certain facts have been highlighted in respect of each appellants, which we will take up and discuss at the appropriate stage in this judgment. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on certain decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, particularly, AIR 1983 SC 580 (Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs. Sanjay Gulati), 2001 (2) SCC 451 (W.B. State Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co.), 2001 (6) SCC 46 (Rajsekhar Gogoi vs. State of Assam), 2005 Writ L.R. 697 (Madras High Court) (Dr.M.Ashiq Nihmathullah vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu) and others, 2006 Writ L.R. 574 (Madras High Court) (Dr.M.Vennila vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission) and 2006 Writ L.R. 964 (Madras High Court) (Dr.A.Rajapandian vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others). Out of these cases, the decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 580 (cited supra) relates to spot admissions made on extraneous considerations and in violation of rules. The said case was based on particular facts and cannot be applied in the present case, in the absence of any evidence to show that one or other appellant was excluded to accommodate one or other individual. The rest of the two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., 2001 (2) SCC 451 (cited supra) and 2001 (6) SCC 46 (cited supra) are not at all applicable, as they relate to awarding of tenders and Assam Excise Rules. Similarly, we are not deliberating on the other cases, as they are based on particular facts and not relevant to the question raised in these appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State, while reiterating that the selection was done in accordance with the procedures prescribed under the relevant Rules and advertisement/prospectus, submitted that there was no illegality committed in the matter of selection of S.I. of Police. He highlighted the manner in which the selection was made and marks were allotted under different heads, including the marks obtained by the appellants. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, the appellants having got lower marks than the cut-off marks i.e. the last obtained by the person recommended and appointed in the particular category and as they have not come within the 'zone of appointment' against the existing vacancies, have not been recommended for appointment. With regard to the individual candidates, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State highlighted their marks vis-a-vis the cut-off marks upto which the names were recommended against each category and it was submitted that those who claim appointment against one or other quota, their cases were so considered. 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the rival contentions, as also the impugned common order and the judgments referred by the learned single Judge/counsel for the parties. We have also noticed the other records including the marks obtained by one or other appellants and certain original records as was produced by the learned counsel for the respondents-State before this Court. 10. The respondents along with their common counter affidavit dated 28.2.2008, filed in the Writ Appeals, produced a chart signed by the Director General of Police/Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai-2, showing the details of marks obtained by one or other applicants, the cut-off marks of that particular quota/community and the final remarks against their individual names showing the reasons for not taking them in the service. Learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the appellants have not disputed the marks as was shown in the said chart including the cut-off marks shown for one or other community/category. For proper appreciation of the individual cases, we are extracting the said chart hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.A. In Code Name of the MARK DETAILS Total Community W.Q. No. W.P. No. No. Applicant PET WT V.V. Marks (80% or 20%) Cut Off RESULT 15% 70% 10% 5% Cut Off Marks Marks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 W.A.194/08 in W.P.31225/07 0100292 12 57 2 0 71 SC-80%-72 - Not secured cut off mark 2 W.A.1610/07 in W.P.32225/07 0102226 15 55 1 0 71 MBC-80%-73 - Not secured cut off mark 3 W.A.1598/07 in W.P.26185/07 0200804 12 55 3 0 70 BC-20%-72 - Not secured cut off mark 4 W.A.198/08 Not qualified for V.V. in W.P.28707/07 0100922 15 46 - - 61 SC-80%- - Cut off mark for VV – 66 5 W.A.195/08 in W.P.32119/07 0104627 12 52 6 0 70 BC-20%-72 - Not secured cut off mark 6 W.A.1584/07 in W.P.32173/07 1000084 15 54 1 0 70 MBC-80%-73 - Not secured cut off mark 7 W.A.1583/07 Not qualified for V.V. in W.P.30358/07 1001862 12 46 - - 58 BC- - PW-59 Cut off mark for VV – 59 8 W.A.1069/07 in W.P.35682/07 0600944 9 53 2 0 64 MBC- - PW-68 Not secured cut off mark 9 W.A.106/08 in W.P.25563/07 0105574 12 54 5 0 71 BC-20%-72 - Not secured cut off mark 10 W.A.1563/07 in W.P.28975/07 1000030 15 45 1 0 61 BC- - PW-67 Not secured cut off mark 11 W.A.1600/07 in W.P.28710/07 0700882 12 56 1 0 69 BC-20%-72 - Not secured cut off mark 12 W.A.197/08 in W.P.33198/07 0105474 12 49 1 1 63 SC-20%-67 - Not secured cut off mark 13 W.A.1608/07 in W.P.33197/07 0105343 15 49 1 0 65 SC-20%-67 - Not secured cut off mark 14 W.A.1601/07 in W.P.29115/07 0100072 15 51 1 0 67 MBC- - PW-68 Not secured cut off mark 15 W.A.1599/07 in W.P.26188/07 2601113 15 54 3 0 72 MBC-20%-73 - Not secured cut off mark 16 W.A.1607/07 in W.P.26184/07 0200893 15 50 3 0 58 BC-20%-72 - Not secured cut off mark 17 W.A.199/08 Not qualified for V.V. in W.P.23692/07 3000305 9 41 - - 51 BC-80%- - Cut off mark for VV – 67 18 WASR.5358/08 in W.P.34267/07 0105055 12 55 3 0 70 BC-20%-72 - Not secured cut off mark 19 W.A.196/08 in W.P.26637/07 0105816 12 54 3 1 70 MBC-20%-73 - Not secured cut off mark 20 W.A.1602/07 in W.P.33376/07 0104977 6 60 6 0 72 MBC-20%-73 - Not secured cut off mark 21 WASR.5354/08 in W.P.34264/07 0105057 9 56 3 0 68 BC-20%-72 - Not secured cut off mark Sl. Spl. Mks. Arulmanimaran.M Balakumaran.C Chandrasekaran A.G. Deenadayalan. R. Kamalakannan. E. Kamalakannan. V. Kuppuraj. J. Mohanraj. S. Packiaraja. M. Paraniramalingam. S. Ponnusamy. R. Prabhu. M. Prabudoss. V. Ramnath. C. Rathinakumar. S. Saravanan. C.P. Sudhan. P. Sundaramoorthy. C.K. Sundararajan. R. Thiruvenkadam. S. Viji. A. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. Learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for the appellants, while making general submission regarding the marks allotted towards direct interview (viva-voce test), as mentioned in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment, highlighted the certificates of individual appellants to suggest that they have not been provided with marks towards such certificates, which they were entitled to. The following submissions were made with regard to some of the appellants: "W.A.No.1598 of 2007 (A.G.Chandrasekaran): The appellant has not been awarded special marks for NSS certificate produced by him. The appellant has attended 240 hours of service in the various NSS projects/camps in the school level. The appellant should have been awarded 2 marks. In the previous selection for Sub Inspector of Police for 120 hours of NSS activities, one mark has been awarded and hence the appellant is eligible for 2 marks. The certificate was produced at the time of viva voce. But no marks have been awarded. W.A.No.1599 of 2007 (S.Rathina Kumar) The appellant has not been awarded special marks for NSS (school and college), NCC (school) and sports/games. The appellant is a member of NSS during school & college. During school, he has participated 240 hours in the programme for which he should have been awarded 1 marks for NSS. He is also a member of NSS in the college and attended the special camp programme for which also he should have been awarded 0.5 mark. The appellant is a NCC cadet and obtained "A" Certificate for which necessary mark should have been awarded. As per the procedure followed for awarding marks, the "C" certificate in the college is alone awarded with marks which is illegal and incorrect. When there is no specific instructions regarding the participation in the school and college level, the appellant cannot be denied marks for the services rendered in NSS and for also obtaining "A" Certificate. The appellant is entitled to get 0.5 mark. The appellant has also participated in the Intramural tournaments and sports representing the college during college days and obtained merit certificate. The appellant has obtained certificate of merit for chess tournament. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant has also participated in various sports activities during school days and obtained merit certificate. The appellant has also obtained merit certificate in the State Police Duty Meet for the year 2004-05 in the State Aquatics which is one of the approved games and sports. The appellant is a State player representing the state in the Aquatics for which he should have been awarded minimum 1 mark. The appellant has also represented