IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.7.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.21893 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.7939 of 1995 A.Rangathal .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Director General of Police Admiralty house, Anna Salai Madras-2 2. The D.I.G. of Police Coimbatore Range Coimbatore District .. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider and include the name of the applicant in the 'C' list of Sub-Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspectors of Police for the year 1994-1995 issued by the D.G.P. In Rc.No.39209/NGB-I(1)/94, dated 30.8.1994, according to her feeder category seniority and at the appropriate place as she was acting temporarily as Inspector of Police with effect from 14.7.1993 with a clean record as on 30.8.1994. The O.A.No.7939/1995 on the file of the TN Administrative Tribunal, Chennai has been transferred and renumbered as W.P.No.21893/2006. For petitioner : Mr.S.Vadivelu For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner has stated that she was recruited as a Women Sub-Inspector of Police, by direct recruitment. Having been selected by the Board, she had joined in duty as a Women Sub Inspector of police, on 25.3.1981. She had satisfactorily completed her probation, on 24.9.1983. The petitioner is governed by the Adhoc Rules issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home, dated 1.11.1974, as amended from time to time. According to the said Rules, the General and Special Rules applicable to the holders of permanent posts in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service shall also apply to the holders of temporary posts of Women Sub Inspectors, Head Constables and police constables, sanctioned from time to time, in the police department, subject to certain modifications. Accordingly, the petitioner had been directly recruited as a Sub-Inspector of Police, as per the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. 3. The petitioner has further stated that her seniority in the category of Sub-Inspectors of Police would have to be counted from 25.3.1981. When she had joined in duty as a Women Sub-Inspector, the petitioner's seniority will be reckoned from 25.3.1981, along with the other women direct recruits and men promotees from the post of Head Constables and those who have come by transfer from other services. 4. The petitioner has further stated that she was temporarily promoted as a women Inspector of police by the proceedings, dated 9.7.1993, issued by the Director General of Police. The 'C' list of Sub-Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspectors of Police for the year 1994-95 was issued by the Director General of Police in Rc.No.39209/NGB.I(1)/94, dated 30.8.1994, and it was confined only to men Sub-Inspectors of Police. In the said 'C' list, dated 30.8.1994, there were several names of persons who were promoted as Sub- Inspectors of Police subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner as a Sub Inspectors of Police. Many persons, who were juniors to the petitioner, were included in the 'C' list and thereafter, they have been promoted and appointed as Inspectors of Police. In spite of the representation made by the petitioner, on 25.11.1994, for her inclusion in the 'C' list, dated 30.8.1994, there was no reply from the concerned authorities. Even though she has been awarded with several medals and certificates, she has not been considered for being promoted as an Inspector of Police, along with the other men Sub-Inspectors of Police. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an original application in O.A.No.7939 of 1995, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.21893 of 2006. 5. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a women sub-inspector, on 25.3.1981. She had completed her probation on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 24.9.1983. Thereafter, she was promoted as a temporary women inspector of police in the year 1993, purely on a temporary basis, along with other senior women sub inspectors of police, consequent to the opening of the all women police stations. She had joined as a temporary women inspector of police, on 14.7.1993, and since she was not included in the 'C' list of Sub-Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as inspectors, for the year 1995-1996 in the memo of the Director General of Police, dated 20.10.1995, she was reverted as a women sub-inspector of police, on 14.11.1995. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that she should have been included in the list of sub-inspectors fit for promotion as Inspector of police in the 'C' list of the year 1994-1995, it has been stated that women sub-inspectors of police were not included in the 'C' list for the year 1994-1995 due to administrative reasons. Further, the petitioner was not included in the 'C' list of Sub-Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspectors of Police for the year 1995-1996, since certain charges, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in P.R.No.48/95, were pending against the petitioner. 6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had placed before this Court an order, dated 28.4.2008, made in W.P.No.20504 of 2006, with regard to certain issues which had arisen under similar circumstances. In the said order, dated 28.4.2008, directions have been issued to the respondents therein to include the name of the petitioner in the 'C' list drawn for promotion to the post of Inspectors of Police in the year 1994-1995 and to grant the consequential benefits to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had prayed that this Court may be pleased to pass a similar order. 7. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that the only reason shown by the respondents for the non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the 'C' list of Sub Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspectors of Police, for the year 1994-1995, is that none of the women Sub Inspectors of police were included in the said 'C' list, dated 30.8.1994, due to administrative reasons. However, the respondents had not specified the administrative reasons which had compelled the respondents not to include the women sub-inspectors in the 'C' list of the year 1994- 1995. Even though there were certain charges against the petitioner, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rule, 1955, during the year 1995-1996, which had disentitled the petitioner from being included in the 'C' list for the year 1995-1996, it cannot https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be said that the petitioner was not eligible for being included in the 'C' list for the year 1994-1995, containing the names of the Sub- Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspectors of Police. Thus, it is clear that the respondents have not shown sufficient cause or reason for not considering the the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police in the 'C' list, dated 30.8.1994, for the year 1994-1995. Even though it is stated that certain charges, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, had been framed against the petitioner during the subsequent year, there is no justification for the respondents not to include the name of the petitioner in the 'C' list, dated 30.8.1994, for the year 1994-1995. Merely stating that no women Sub inspector of police was included in the 'C' list, dated 30.8.1994, for the year 1994-1995, due to administrative reasons, will not be a sufficient ground to exclude the name of the petitioner from the said 'C' list. In such circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, along with the names of the others included in the 'C' list, dated 30.8.1994, for the year 1994-1995, with all the consequent benefits, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Lan Sub Asst. Registrar To: 1. Director General of Police Admiralty house, Anna Salai,Madras-2 2. D.I.G. of Police Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore District 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.40033 +1 cc to Mr.S.Vadivelu, Advocate, SR.No.39725 W.P.No.21893 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.7939 of 1995 SS (CO) SMK/08.08.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/