IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.7.2011 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.26894 of 2004 Mr.R.Venkatesan ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Home ( Pol.III) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Director General of Police and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniforms Services Recruitment Board, Chennai – 2. ... Respondents Prayer : The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the orders of the first respondent herein passed in his letter (D) No.328, Home Department, dated 21.3.2002, rejecting the petitioner's request to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1994-95, and the consequential order passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings C.No.D1/1680/2000 dated 23.8.2004, communicating the order of the first respondent herein, and to quash the same and also to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1994-95 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Ravishanmugam for M/s.Sudha Ravi Associates For Respondents : Mr. S.V.Durai Solaimalai Addl. Govt. Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 21.3.2002, passed by the first respondent in letter (D) No.328, Home Department, rejecting the petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ request to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1994- 95, and the consequential order dated 23.8.2004, passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings in C.No.D1/1680/2000, communicating the order of the first respondent, and to quash the same and with a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the above said post, with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. Mr.Ravishanmugam, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner originally joined duty as Grade-II Police Constable on 9.6.1993. The petitioner, being a graduate, applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, when the Government invited applications from candidates by direct recruitment on 1.1.1994 and he was one of the candidates. Therefore, the petitioner was subjected to Physical Efficiency and Physical measurement tests. The petitioner successfully participated in the said tests and after qualifying in both the tests, he was asked to appear for written test and viva-voce. The petitioner also participated in the said written test and viva voce and after getting qualified in those tests, he was again directed to appear before the Medical Board for physical examination on 13.10.1995 and on 14.10.1995, at Kilpauk Medical College, Hospital, Chennai. But, thereafter, the petitioner was not issued with any communication whether he was selected for the said post or not. 3. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application in O.A.No.5906 of 1997, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal ( for short ' Tribunal') seeking for a direction to consider him for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and the learned counsel for the petitioner at this point of time submitted that when a similar batch of cases were taken up by the Tribunal for final disposal, along with the said batch of cases, the petitioner's original application was also wrongly dismissed, without properly dealing with the case of the petitioner. Against the dismissal of the application by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court, being W.P.No.5768 of 1999 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in and by its order dated 14.6.2001, allowed the said petition, with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the petitioner's case afresh. Thereafter, the Tribunal also rejected the case of the petitioner and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 4. During the pendency of the said application before the Tribunal, the petitioner was once again called for second medical examination. The second respondent addressed a letter dated 26.7.2001, to the Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai, to constitute a second Medical Board in order to examine medical fitness of the petitioner for the said post. In response to the said letter dated 26.7.2001, to the Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai, the petitioner was directed to appear for second medical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examination and the second Medical Board also confirmed with the earlier opinion of the first Medical Board, and sent a report stating that the petitioner has got minimal and mild bilalteral flexible flat foot, which may not interfere with his routine duties. On the basis of report of the second Medical Board, an order dated 21.3.2002, was passed, rejecting the case of the petitioner for the post of Sun- Inspectof of Police. The said rejection order dated 21.3.2002, was communicated to the petitioner only on 23.8.2004. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by elaborately advancing his arguments, pinpointed two facts viz., i) that the petitioner admittedly worked as Police Constable and subsequently, he was upgraded to Grade I Police Constable and again he was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 2009, which shows that the petitioner is medically and physically fit to continue in the police services as a respective police officer; ii) when the second Medical Board, also confirmed the earlier opinion of the first Medical Board, and sent a medical report, certifying that the petitioner is having only a minimal and mild bilalteral flexible flat foot, which may not interfere with his routine duties, it is not open to the respondents to reject the case of the petitioner, when he has already worked as Head Constable. On that basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for setting aside the rejection order dated 21.3.2002, passed by the first respondent and for allowing the Writ Petition. 6. In reply, Mr. S.V.Durai Solaimalai, the learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents submitted that though the second Medical Board also after examining the petitioner, has sent a report stating that the petitioner has got minimal and mild bilalteral flexible flat foot and declared that the same may not interfere with his routine duties, it does not mean that the petitioner is fully fit enough to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Since the said certificate does not categorically mention that he is fit for the said post, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order. The statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents carries more force. 7. Thus, when the petitioner has been certified by the second Medical Board that he has got minimal and mild bilalteral flexible flat foot, eventhough, the Board declared that the said defect may not interfere with his routine duties, that does not mean that the petitioner is fully fit enough to be appointed for the said post. Therefore, I find no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sd To 1. The Secretary to Government, Home ( Pol.III) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Director General of Police and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniforms Services Recruitment Board, Chennai – 2. + 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.46448 + 1 cc to M/s. Sudha Ravi, Sr.46105 W.P.No.26894 of 2004 SAI(CO) EU 29.8.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/