IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 18-06-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.16626 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.7358 of 1995) P.Bose .. Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2.The Director General of Police, Admirality House, Government Estate, Anna Salai, Madras-2. 3.Mr.M.Sundararajan 4.Mr.P.Sengodan 5.Mr.M.Jayaraj .. Respondents/Respondents Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to forthwith include the name of the applicant in the regular panel of Inspectors fit for appointment by recruitment by transfer as Deputy Inspector of Police (Category I) for 1984-85 and also assign the seniority by placing the applicant in an appropriate place and to refix the original seniority applicant from Sub Inspector to Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police to Deputy Superintendent of Police and also promote the applicant as Additional Superintendent of Police and grant other monetary and other benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Kulandaivelu For Respondents : Mr.T.Sreenivasan Government Advocate (R1 & R2) Mr.S.Vignesh (R4) Mr.Muthappan (R3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner had submitted that he is a Deputy Superintendent of Police In Service Training, Tirunelveli Range. He was directly recruited as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1960. The petitioner had completed his training, on 13.6.1961, and he, along with his 37 batch mates were posted in Southern, Western and Central Ranges, as per the District Order No.159/PTE/61/Vellore, dated 9.6.1961. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 had joined the Police Training College, Vellore, on 14.9.1960, and when they had left the College, no seniority list was given to them. The 3rd respondent was posted in Chengleput District in Central Range. The 4th and 5th respondents were posted in Salem District in Western Range. The petitioner was posted in Tirunelveli District in Southern Region, vide D.O.No.159/PTC/61/Vellore, dated 9.6.1961. While serving as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at Tuticorin, the petitioner had appeared for direct recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police and was selected in the year 1962. The respondents 3 to 5 had secured less marks than the petitioner in the final examinations held at the Police Training College. The petitioner was promoted as an Inspector, on 20.6.73, whereas, the respondents 3 to 5 were promoted as Inspectors, on 20.10.1972, 11.7.73 and 7.10.74, respectively. In spite of the respondents 3 to 5 being juniors to the petitioner at the Assistant Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector and Inspector Levels, the names of the 3rd and 4th respondents were included in the year 1984 - 85 panel of Inspectors fit for appointment as D.S.P (Cat.I) in Sl.Nos.63 and 75, respectively. The 3rd respondent was promoted as DSP (Cat.I) with effect from 15.8.1990 and by a subsequent order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, his name was included in the year 1984-85 panel of Inspectors fit for the appointment as D.S.P (Cat.I). The petitioners name was included in the year 1986-87 panel of Inspectors fit for appointment as D.S.P (Cat.I) and he was promoted as such, on 7.9.1987. 4. It has been further submitted that as per Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, the Seniority of the direct recruits shall be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the final examinations held at the Police Training College. As such, the respondents 3 to 5 should be placed below the petitioner in the rank of seniority. Further, G.O.Ms.No.159, Home Department, dated 20.1.1964, prescribes the procedure for fixing the seniority amongst the direct recruits. However, the respondents had violated the procedure prescribed by the said Government Order, as well as the principles laid down in the decision of the Tribunal in its order, dated 3.7.1991, made in T.A.No.1028 of 1989. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was initially recruited as direct Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, on 14.9.1960, and subsequently, selected as Sub Inspector of Police by direct recruitment in the year 1963. The petitioner's case was considered by the State Promotion Board during the year 1971 for inclusion in the `C' list of Sub Inspector of Police, but his name was not included therein due to the recent punishment awarded to him. However, on his appeal to the Government, his name was included in the `C' list of Sub Inspector of Police drawn up for the year 1971, as Sl.No.127(e) in G.O.Ms.No.1158, Home, dated 27.4.1973, and he was promoted as Inspector of Police, with effect from 10.8.73. The feeder category for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category I, is that of Inspector of Police. As per the seniority in the feeder category, the petitioner's name was duly considered for the inclusion in the panel of Inspectors of Police fit for appointment by transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category I, for the year 1984-85. However, his case was not recommended due to his bad record of service, pendency of charges under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the punishment awarded to him and the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report. The petitioner was not recommended to be included in the panel for the year 1985-86, due to the recent punishment awarded to him. However, his name was included in the panel in the year 1986-87 and promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category I, on 7.9.87. 6. The claim of the petitioner that the third respondent M.Sundararajan is junior to him is incorrect. M.Sundararajan is senior to the applicant and he was included in the promotion panel of Inspector of Police to be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Catergory I, for the year 1985, since there was nothing adverse against him and he was found suitable for promotion, on merit. Similarly, P.Sengodan, though junior to the petitioner, was included in the promotion panel of Inspector of Police, to be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the panel for the year 1984-85, since there were no adverse remarks in his service records. 7. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to the wrong fixation of seniority in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police during the year 1960 is highly belated. In view of Rule 35(f) of the Tamil Nadu General Service Rules and G.O.Ms.No.72, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.1.83, revision of seniority cannot be entertained, belatedly. In G.O.Ms.No.354, Home (Police III) Department, dated 12.2.1980, the Government has ordered that entertaining matters of seniority after a long time, is likely to result in administrative complications and therefore, in the interest of efficiency of service, such matters ought not to be entertained, if the claim is belated. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable, both on facts and in law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as for the respondents, it is clear that the name of the petitioner has not been included in the panel drawn up by the respondents, only based on the adverse remarks in his service records and due to the punishment awarded to him at the time of preparation of the panels. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to explain the inordinate delay in agitating the issue of his seniority in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, which was fixed during the year 1960. It is also seen that the respondents have followed the procedures prescribed by the relevant rules and the Government Orders, for preparing the panel fit for promotion as Deputy Inspector of Grade I, at the relevant point of time. In such circumstances, it is found that the relief sought for by the petitioner in the above writ petition cannot be granted at this stage. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2.The Director General of Police, Admirality House, Government Estate, Anna Salai, Madras-2. 1 cc To M/s.Vedavalli Kumar, Advocate, SR.30655. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.30947. 1 cc To M/s.Muthumani Doraisamy, Advocate, SR.31075. Writ Petition No.16626 of 2006 BV(CO) RVL 30.06.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/