IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:06.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.Nos.15398 and 15399 of 2008 M.Johnson ... Petitioner in W.P.No.15398/2008 M.Paramasivam ... Petitioner in W.P.No.15399/2008 Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police, Salem. 2.Thiru K.Gopalakrishnan, I.P.S. Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police, Salem. ... 1 and 2 Respondents in both petitions 3.Thiru Ramakrishnan, H.C.648 presently working as car Driver The Commissioner of Police, Salem City. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.15398/2008 PRAYER IN W.P.No.15398 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in C.P.O.No.367/2008 (C.No.A3/134/7854/2008), dated 23.06.2008, quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioner and issue consequential directions to allow the petitioner to continue as Head Constable (AR), II Platoon, Salem and to consider him for inclusion of his name in the 'C' List and for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police (AR) in accordance with his seniority and to promote him as such with all benefits. PRAYER IN W.P.No.15399 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in C.P.O.No.367/2008 (C.No.A3/134/7854/2008), dated 23.06.2008, quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioner and issue consequential directions to allow the petitioner to continue as Head Constable (AR-MT), Salem, and to fix https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seniority in the post of Head Constable (AR) and consider him for inclusion of his name in the 'C' List and for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police (AR) in accordance with his seniority and to promote him as such with all benefits. For Petitioner in both petitions :Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents :Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, AGP for R1 in both petitions No Appearance for R2 in both petitions No Appearance for R3 in W.P.No.15398/2008 No Appearance for R2 in WP No.15399/2008 COMMON ORDER As the facts leading to both writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. For better appreciation, the facts involved in one of the writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.15398 of 2008, are briefly stated hereunder:- The petitioner, while he was working as Police Constable in Armed Reserve, was transferred on his own request to Local Police on 30.09.2004 and thereafter, the respondent transferred back the petitioner on 19.09.2005 to Armed Reserve Unit. When he was working as Police Constable in the Armed Reserve, he was once again transferred back to Local Police by the impugned order. The said impugned order transferring the petitioner from Armed Reserve to Local Police is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, placed two fold submissions:- Firstly, it was submitted that even before completing one year of service, the petitioner was transferred from Local Police to Armed Reserve on 19.09.2005. When he was serving under the Armed Reserve, the Commissioner of Police, Salem/2nd respondent herein, called the petitioner's file for the purpose of considering his promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 2008-2009 upto 31.03.2008. While considering his case for promotion, the 2nd respondent, only for the purpose of promoting his driver, namely, Ramakrishnan/3rd respondent herein, wrongly transferred the petitioner once again to Local Police, without even putting notice to the petitioner. Secondly, it was contended that even before completing one year of service in Armed Police, transferring the petitioner to Local Police is against the Police Service Rules. Further, it was also contended that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the 2nd respondent, only in an effort to promote the 3rd respondent, passed the impugned order with malafide intention. With the aforesaid submissions, he pleaded for allowing the present writ petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner, while serving in the Armed Reserve, made a request transfer to post him in the Local Police. On the basis of his request for transfer, he was posted in the Local Police. But, subsequently, he was wrongly posted back to Armed Reserve on 19.09.2005. When he was wrongly posted, the department was not aware of his posting order dated 19.09.2005 from Local Police to Armed Reserve. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Police/2nd respondent herein came to know that there was a circular memorandum dated 24.01.1987, which says if an Armed Reserve person is retransferred from local police to Armed Reserve at his request, his transfer will lead to several complaints by the affected persons, who remain in the Armed Reserve and the circular further gives a direction to all the Superintendent of Police not to permit such retransfer unless such person is transferred by way of punishment and even as a punishment, it should be for a specific period not exceeding two years. But, without noticing this circular, the 2nd respondent has wrongly transferred the petitioner to Local Police. 4. In his further submission, it was submitted that the submission made by the petitioner saying that the impugned order came to be passed for the purpose of promoting the 3rd respondent, who is presently working as Driver to the Commissioner of Police, also cannot be accepted for the reason that the 3rd respondent was not considered for promotion to higher post. It is further submitted that the department is maintaining separate seniority list both for Armed Reserve as well as Local Police. If at all the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are going to be considered for promotion, they will be considered only on the basis of the seniority maintained by their own unit. Therefore, the question of promoting the 3rd respondent, who is said to be the junior to the petitioner, cannot be espoused by this Court. On that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. No doubt, the petitioner, while serving in the Armed Reserve, made a request for transfer to go to Local Police. Accepting his request for transfer, he was posted in the Local Police unit. But after some time, he was reposted back to Armed Reserve. While, he was serving in the Armed Reserve, the petitioner made an application requesting to consider his application for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the Armed Reserve. While considering the application filed the by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent/the Commissioner of Police, Salem, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has come across the circular memorandum dated 24.01.1987. The said circular clearly makes the stand of the respondent very clear that if an Armed Reserve person is retransferred from Local Police to Armed Reserve at his request, his retransfer will lead to several complaints by the affected persons in the Armed Reserve and further it directed all the Superintendent of Police not to permit such transfer, unless such transfer is made by way of punishment. After coming to know this circular dated 24.01.1987, the 2nd respondent has rightly passed the impugned order saying that his transfer to Armed Reserve is totally contrary to the circular memorandum dated 24.01.1987. Therefore, the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he should have been put on notice before he was transferred to local police, does not deserve any acceptance by this Court, for the reason that the petitioner's earlier transfer to Armed Reserve to Local Police on 19.09.2005 was erroneous transfer order. Further, that reposting order posting him from Armed Reserve to Local Police is also running contrary to circular memorandum dated 24.01.1987. Therefore, the 2nd respondent, while coming to know that his earlier transfer order is a wrong order, is entitled to rectify the same. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent has passed the present impugned order. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners to consider their case. 7. In result, the present writ petitions are dismissed. However, the dismissal of the present writ petitions does not bar the petitioners to claim their service benefits, when they served under the Local Police. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rkm To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police, Salem. +1cc to Government Pleader Sr 32842 +1cc to Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate Sr 32170 PUR(CO) km/21.6. W.P.Nos.15398 and 15399 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/