IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 16-03-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.7291 of 2006 M.Abdul Rahim .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Police VI) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 3. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Adyar, Chennai-20. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the non-selection of the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police, under 20% departmental quota for the year 1997-98 is null and void and further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service and grant such other further relief. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatramani, Senior Advocate for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan (AGP) O R D E R 1. The petitioner has stated that he had entered the Police Subordinate Service, on 17.1.1968, as a directly recruited Grade-II Police Constable. Subsequently, he had been promoted as a Grade-I Police Constable and as a Head Constable, on 23.7.2002, based on his seniority and merit. While so, the respondents had advertised for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, by direct recruitment from amongst the departmental candidates in the year https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1997-1998. Following the advertisement, the petitioner, who is a graduate, had applied for being selected to the said post. He belongs to the backward class community and he was fully qualified for being selected. 2. During the physical efficiency test conducted, on 15.7.1998, he had secured 45 marks. Thereafter, he had been directed to appear for a written test, on 19.7.1998, in which he had secured more than 50% of the 40 marks earmarked for the said test. Thus, he had become eligible to attend the viva-voce test, which had been held, on 11.12.1998. Based on the call letter, the petitioner had appeared for the viva-voce examination, in which he had answered all the questions, very well. However, the petitioner did not receive the call letter, which had been issued by the second respondent to various other candidates, directing them to appear for the medical examination, which is the next stage in the process of selection. The petitioner had made a representation to the second and the third respondents, on 1.3.2000 and had also issued reminders on 1.3.2001 and 19.10.2001. However, there was no response to the representations sent by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has further stated that there was no publication of the results, at every stage of the selection process, as there was a lot of malpractice in the selection process, including the correction of marks, at the last stage, to suit the convenience of several candidates, who had paid hefty sums of money, through their political mentors. He had also submitted that he did not know about the fact that a number of candidates, who had not been selected, had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the selection process. Only when the petitioner was directed to appear before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Detachment-II, Chennai, by the summons, dated 1.9.2002, he came to know that a criminal case had been registered against three high level police officials for the malpractice committed during the selection process. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a representation, on 6.6.2005, making a request for his appointment as a Sub-Inspector of Police. 4. It has been further stated that from the first information report filed, in respect of the irregularities that had been committed during the selection process, he had found that the 9.5 marks awarded to the petitioner, under the special qualification and interview assessment category, had been reduced to 9 marks. Thus, his total marks had been corrected as 55.75. As 56.25 was the required cut off marks for backward class candidates he had not been selected. Since, the reduction of the marks awarded to the petitioner earlier is arbitrary and illegal, he had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner had in fact got 55.75 as the total marks. Even if the petitioner had been awarded 9.5 marks for the interview he would have got only 56.25 marks in total, whereas, the required cut off marks, under the backward class category was 56.75. It had also been stated that some of the candidates had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the Range-wise selection mentioned in the recruitment notification. The Tribunal had given a finding that the selection of departmental candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of police, for the year 1997-1998, had not been done on Zone-wise basis and had also held that the direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of police made on Zone-wise basis was bad in law. However, the Tribunal was not inclined to set aside the entire selection process already made. 6. It had also been stated that when the matter was taken up before the Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.Nos.17639 of 2001 (batch), an order, dated 25.2.2005, had been passed, wherein it had been held that the selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, by way of direct recruitment, from the open market, in the year 1997- 1998, pursuant to the notification, dated 2.4.1998, was invalid on the ground that such selection was made Zone-wise, without any provision being made in the said notification for making such selection. In so far as the selection of the in-service candidates, by way of direct recruitment, under the 20% quota was concerned the Division Bench had not interfered with the selection, as there was no definite material to conclude that such selection had also been made Zone-wise. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, immediately, after coming to know, of the malpractice that had taken place in the selection process and therefore, the benefits given to certain candidates, by considering them for being selected as Sub- Inspectors of Police should also be granted in favour of the petitioner, by selecting him, as a Sub-Inspector of Police, by giving effect to such selection, retrospectively, from the year 1997-1998. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that a number of writ petitions had been dismissed by this Court, due to laches, as they had been filed belatedly. The present petition filed by the petitioner has also been filed belatedly, without showing sufficient reason for the delay. In fact in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that he came to know about the malpractice that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had taken place in the recruitment process, when he had been summoned to appear before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Detachment-II, Chennai, by way of a summons, dated 1.9.2002. Thereafter, he is said to have made a representation to the respondents only on 6.6.2005. 9. Even otherwise if there is reduction of marks in the interview, from 9.5 to 9, it had not materially affected his selection, as the petitioner would have obtained only 56.25 after the addition of 0.5 marks that had been reduced. However, the cut off marks for being selected as a Sub-Inspector of Police, under the backward class category was 56.75 marks. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner would not have been eligible to be considered for selection, even if he had obtained a total of 56.25 marks. 10. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, prayed for by him, in the present writ petition. 11. Even though the petitioner has known about the malpractice that had taken place in the recruitment process in the year, 2002, when he had received the summons from the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Detachment-II, Chennai, he had not chosen to agitate the matter, before the appropriate forum, till he had filed the present writ petition before this Court, belatedly, in the year 2006. Even if it could be taken that the petitioner had obtained 9.5 marks in the interview he would have got a total of 56.25 marks. However, it is seen that the cut off marks for being selected as Sub- Inspector of Police, for the backward class category, was 56.75 marks. 12. Further, it is not open to the petitioner to claim that he should also be appointed, as a Sub-Inspector of Police, from the year 1997-1998, even if some of the candidates had been appointed, pursuant to the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, as well as the Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.17639 of 2001 (batch), dated 25.2.2005, as he had approached this Court, belatedly. In such circumstances, it is clear that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced, at this stage. As the writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Police VI) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 3. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Adyar, Chennai-20. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.19471 Order in Writ Petition No.7291 of 2006 JP (CO) RH (12.4.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/