IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. RAJA W.P.No.11057 of 2009 & W.P.No.5041 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 Y.Yesu Chandra Bose .. Petitioner in WP.No.11057/2009 S.Ayyasamy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.5041/2008 Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police-III), Department, The Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2.The Director General of Police and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Chennai -20. 3.The Director General of Police (Law and Order), Office of Director General of Police Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Chennai -4. .. Respondents in both petitions W.P. No.11057 of 2009 for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents in C.No.155230/Rect-1/2000 dated 04.01.2000 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for want of vacancy and consequently direct the third respondent to issue the appointment order in favour of the petitioner for the post of Sub Inspector of Police by sending him to the statutory training for the post of Sub Inspect of Police as a condition precedent for such appointment. WP.No.5041 of 2008 filed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents and quash the order passed by the first respondent vide G.O.(3D) No.84 dated 21.05.2001 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for want of vacancy and consequently direct to issue the appointment order in favour of the petitioner for the said post and by sending the petitioner to the required training for the post of Sub Inspector of Police as per rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, GA COMMON ORDER The Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board had notified recruitment of 1100 Sub Inspect of Police for the year 1994-1995, in which 80% of posts to be filled up under direct recruitment quota and 20% under departmental quota. Though the recruitment board TNUSRB had notified the recruitment of 1100 Sub Inspectors, however the Board had selected 1198 candidates, and these candidates underwent all the tests, including medical test and police verification. The 98 candidates, who were in excess of the notified vacancies, namely 1100 were not given appointment order and sent for training, of these 98 candidates, 73 people filed O.A. in the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking appointment order but the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dismissed their O.As with the observation that the candidate who have secured equal marks as those already given appointment but denied appointment on the sole ground that they were Junior in age may be considered for appointment. Accordingly, the Government of Tamil Nadu took up the matter for consideration of their cases. 2. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State, while moving police demand for the year 1999-2000 on the floor of the Assembly on 10.05.1999 announced that the 98 candidate who have been selected during the year 1994-1995 would be given appointment by the next recruitment by relaxing the age rule etc., wherever necessary. Para 4 and 5 of the G.O.1281, dated 12.09.1999 reads as under : "4.The Government after careful examination of the views of the Director General of Police, direct that the 98 candidates who had been selected during the 1994-1995 Sub Inspectors of Police recruitment in excess of the notified vacancies of 1100 candidates be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police by relaxing the rules relating to age, communal rotations, sports quota and 30% reservation for women PC's as one time measure. 5. These 98 candidates shall be subject to police verification again. Their seniority will be reckoned by placing them below the 1000 Sub Inspectors of Police candidate selected during the 1997-98 recruitment. They will be sent for training in May 2000 alongwith the second batch of Sub-Inspectors candidates selected during the 1997-1998 recruitment." 3. The case of the petitioner herein is, though the petitioner had also secured the cut off marks of 65, they were not selected by the TNUSRB due to want of vacancies. Since some of the selected https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ candidates also secured 65 marks and the petitioners also secured 65 marks, but not selected, the petitioner filed OA.6140/1997, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal but the Tribunal dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the order the present writ petitioner Mr.Y.Yesu Chandra Bose in WP.No.11057 of 2009 had filed the writ petition No.15843/1999 against the order of the TAT. This court while dismissing the above said writ petition made an observation as follows: "In view of what is stated above we don't think that the Tribunal is in error in rejecting the original application filed by the applicant. It is left to the authorities to consider the claim of the writ petitioner if there is still any post available and if he satisfies the requirements." 4. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on the basis of the observation made by this court. Accordingly, the Chairman of the TNUSRB has informed that in the light of the order of the High Court that the applicant's claim may be considered and orders be issued. Accordingly, Y.Yesu Chandra Bose for appointment as Sub Inspector of Police under 20% departmental quota of 1994-1995 has been considered. It is further seen that in the waiting list of candidates provided by the Chairman, TNUSRB, Mr.Y.Yesu Chandra Bose is the sixth one, out of seven BC candidates, who secured equal marks, candidates could not be given appointment for want of vacancy. The gradation given to the abovesaid 7 candidates is as follows :- S. No. Gradation No. and Code No. Name Date of Appointment 1 230; 24/53 Isacraj Rajkumar 25.05.88 2 231; 19/70 A.Sethu 25.05.88 3 232; 21/70 M.Ganapathy 25.05.88 4 233; 13/10 S.Sampath 25.05.88 5 234; 21/59 M.Venkatachalam 17.11.88 6 235; 25/52 Y.Yesu Chandra Bose 25.11.88 7 236; 18/64 S.Ayyasamy 26.12.88 5. On the basis of want of vacancies the case of the petitioner was negatived. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents originally notified 1100 Sub Inspectors for the year 1994-1995 out of which 80% of posts from direct recruits and 20% from in-service candidates, which is constituting 270 for in-service candidates. Subsequently, the Government issued a G.O.No.1281 dated 12.09.1999 selecting 98 more candidates appointing only by way of direct recruitment. When the Government appointed these 98 candidates, they were appointed in excess of the notified vacancies, namely 1100, the respondent also should have equally been given equal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rights like 80:20 ratio even in 98 posts, accordingly, if 20% ratio is given by applying the said ratio of 80 : 20 ration even in 98 vacancies, the petitioners could have been easily appointed as a in- service candidates for the post of Sub Inspector. The learned Government Advocate fairly replied that the ratio of 80 : 20 was not applied while filling all 98 vacancies. 6. On the basis of the above said submission the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fervently prayed this court to allow the writ petition and to give suitable direction to the respondents to send these two candidates for training. Though one of the candidate, namely Ayyasamy, was already sent for training, the another left out candidate, Mr.Yesu Chandra Bose, has not been, till date, sent for training. Therefore, he should also be sent for training and, after the completion of the training should be appointed as a Sub Inspector. 7. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that though on the basis of 80:20 ratio, 1100 directly recruited candidates were appointed, and Sub Inspector and 270 posts were earmarked for appointment from the inservice candidates. Out of 270 posts, 267 in-service candidates were appointed, i.e., out of 267 posts, 257 posts were filled in from among the in-service candidates, 10 SC candidates were appointed and only three candidates from ST category could not be appointed. Except 3 vacancies reserved for ST, all 267 vacancies earmarked for appointing in service candidates have all been completed. Therefore, 3 vacancies earmarked for ST candidate cannot be carried forward for appointing BC candidates namely the petitioner herein. Secondly, it was also submitted that when the Government appointed 98 additional candidates belonging to direct recruitment quota this was done only as one time measure by relaxing their age, communal rotations, sports quota and 30% reservation for women PC's as one time measure. The relevant Paragraphs in G.O.No.1281, dated 12.09.1999 is given here under for reference : "4.The Government after careful examination of the views of the Director General of Police, direct that the 98 candidates who had been selected during the 1994-1995 Sub Inspectors of Police recruitment in excess of the notified vacancies of 1100 candidates be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police by relaxing the rules relating to age, communal rotations, sports quota and 30% reservation for women PC's one time measure. 5. These 98 candidates shall be subject to police verification again. Their seniority will be reckoned by placing them below the 1000 Sub Inspectors of Police candidate selected during the 1997-98 recruitment. They will be sent for training in May 2000. Alongwith the second batch of Sub-Inspectors candidates selected during the 1997-1998 recruitment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Under rule 12 of the General Rules for the state and subordinate services rules, contained in volume III of the Tamil Nadu Services Manual 1970, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby relaxes Rule 22 of the General Rules for state and subordinate services as one time measure in regard to communal rotation in favour of the 98 candidates selected in excess of the notified vacancies of 1100 during the 1994-1995 Sub Inspectors of Police recruitment so as to enable them to appointed as Sub Inspectors of Police. 7.The Director General of Police is requested to send separate proposal for relaxation of age rule in individual cases, Wherever necessary." 8. Heard the counsel appearing on either side and perused the records. 9. The respondents have admittedly appointed 80% of directly recruited candidates, who are constituting 1100 candidates and 20% of in-service candidates, who are constituting 270 candidates. Wjile again appointing additional 98 candidates, it is admittedly conceded that the Government have not followed 80:20 ratio in filling all 98 vacancies. The G.O.1281, dated 12.09.1999 also clearly says that the Government by giving relaxation of age, communal rotations, sports quota and 30% reservation for women PC's have failed to consider granting 20% reservation to the inservice candidates. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner if the respondents TNUSRB properly applied 80:20 ratio in filling up all 98 additional vacancies, the petitioners, namely Y.Yesu Chandra Bose and Ayyasamy could have easily got appointed as they have also obtained the cut off marks 65, which was applied for selection to the post of Sub Inspector in the year 1994-1995. This aspect was not properly taken note of by all concerned and if I put it rightly, the respondents have adroitly and skillfully withheld the information in all the earlier proceedings, which culminated into writ petitions and O.A. before the Tribunal. 10. Therefore, this court by order dated 28.02.2008 directed the respondent to send the petitioner for statutory training, stating that in the event of success in the writ petition his chance for appointment for the post of Sub-Inspector should not be denied. Accordingly, S.Ayyasamy who is placed in S.No.7 has already been sent for training. While sending S.Ayyasamy who is placed in S.No.7 in the waiting list for statutory training, it is fair and equally reasonable to send the other writ petitioner in W.P. No.11057/2009, i.e., Y.Yesu Chandra Bose, who is placed in S.No.6, who is admittedly senior to S.Ayyasamy. 11. the respondents are directed to send Mr. Y.Yesu Chandra Bose petitioner in WP.No.11057 of 2009 for statutory training and after completion of the training both the petitioners should be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police. Since the respondents have withheld this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vital information as to how all 98 vacancies were filled up without applying the ratio of 80:20 and dragged on the petitioners for a longer period, to meet the ends of justice, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners from the date of appointment of 1100 Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1994-1995 with all consequential benefits. Regarding the question of payment of consequential benefits to these petitioners, this Court, though keeps in mind the principle of "no work no pay", however, as the petitioners have been working as police constable and also rightly selected to the post of Sub- Inspector by the respondents from in-service category, namely, 20% ratio meant for departmental candidates and, subsequently, a learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 28.02.2008, on being satisfied that a prima facie case has been established by the petitioner, directed the respondents to send S.Ayyasamy, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.5041/2008 for statutory training, who being junior to the other writ petitioner, Y.Yesu Chandra Bose, who figures in S.No.6 just above S.Ayyasamy, this Court, by taking into account the clear lapse and also the withholding of information in W.P. No.15843/99 and W.P. No.38026/02, has no hesitation to direct the respondents to pay the scale of pay payable to the Sub-Inspector of Police from the date of selection of similarly placed departmental candidates in the year 1994-1995, less the differential amount already received by them as Police Constables. The principle of "no work no pay" will not apply in the present case as the petitioners are already working as Police Constables and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the differential amount is directed to be paid, which will be only negligible. 12. This Court also finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the Government, in filling up all 98 vacancies, without applying the 80:20 ratio between direct recruits and departmental candidates, had granted several relaxations in respect of age, communal rotation, sports quota and 30% reservation for women, such relaxation need not be granted for these two petitioners as they have already been selected on merit by securing the cut-off marks of 65%. As both the petitioners have been put to great hardship due to the withholding of information by the department/respondents herein as to why they have not applied the ratio of 80:20 to the candidates selected from direct recruits and also candidates coming from the department, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to implement this order within a period of four weeks. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that these two writ petitions deserve to be allowed and, accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed by quashing the impugned order C.No.155230/Rect-1/2000 dated 4th Jan., 2000 passed by 3rd respondent in W.P. No.11057/09 and the impugned order G.O. (3D) No.84 dated 21st May, 2001, passed by the 1st respondent in in W.P. No.5041/08 and with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a further direction to the respondents to implement this order within a period of four weeks. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar TSH/GLN To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Police-III), Department, Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2.The Director General of Police and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Chennai -20. 3.The Director General of Police (Law and Order), Office of Director General of Police Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Chennai -4. Order in W.P.No.5041 of 2008 and W.P.No.11057 of 2009 MDR {CO} TP/19.2.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/