IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 4.2.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR WRIT PETITION NO.37424 OF 2006 M. PERIYASAMY .. PETITIONER Vs 1 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME (POLICE) DEPT. FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9. 2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHENNAI-4. 3 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TRICHY RANGE, TRICHY .. RESPONDENTS Prayer: Original Application No.9437 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to quash the memorandum issued by the second respondent in his Rc.No.225562/NGB IV(1)/98 dated 1.11.98 and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1978-79 by including his name in the appropriate place with due seniority and also direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Police from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For petitioner : Mr.S.Ravi For respondents : Mr. B. Vijay, Government Advocate. O R D E R Original Application No.9437 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to quash the memorandum issued by the second respondent in his Rc.No.225562/NGB IV(1)/98 dated 1.11.98 and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1978-79 by including his name in the appropriate place with due seniority and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Police from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. 2. The applicant, the Sub Inspector of Police was aged 56 years at the time of filing the Original Application seeking the above stated relief. His plea is that he joined the services as Grade II constable on 2.12.1963 and was promoted as Head Constable on 7.1.1974 and then promoted as Sub Inspector Police in the year 1991. As per the Rule 3(d) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, on completion of 7 years of service and 4 years as Head constable, he is eligible to be promoted as Sub Inspector of Police. But the applicant was denied an opportunity to attend the 1978-79 range promotion test. Hence he has given a representation on 5.2.1990 to promote him as Sub Inspector of Police by including his name in the 1978-79 range promotion test. He filed O.A.No.801 of 1991 and the Tribunal directed the second respondent to consider the representation on merits within 6 weeks. But no orders were passed. Then he made a representation on 25.1.1997 to the second respondent to consider his earlier representation dated 5.2.1990. Then he filed O.A.No.2732 of 1997 and the Tribunal directed the second respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 25.1.1997 within a period of three weeks. The said representation was rejected by the second respondent by order dated 1.11.1998 which is under challenge and para 3 of the order reads as follows:- "3) His plea for promoting him as regular S.I. from 1978 onwards is not supported by valid grounds. The post of Station House Officer (SI) is a selection post and it is filled up by two channel, that is one by direct appointment and the other is by promoting eligible H.Cs. by Promotion tests. Merit and ability are the criteria for considering the cases of eligible HC for promotion as S.I. through promotion tests. They have to prove their mettle in the promotion test. But Tr.M.Periyasamy naturally lost the chance of attending promotion test from 1978 due to the reasons mentioned above. Hence he cannot claim promotion as S.I. of police on regular basis with retrospective effect on par with his juniors who have been elevated to the rank of S.I. through competitive tests held in these years. There is no question of giving him promotion as S.I. of Police on regular basis with retrospective effect without attending promotion tests." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The reason for not considering the petitioner's name has been set out in the impugned order itself at para 2(I) which states that the petitioner has suffered several punishments during relevant time and therefore his case was not considered for the Range Promotion Board Test. The petitioner is not able to state any other valid legal ground to substantiate his plea for promotion as claimed in the writ petition. The authority has considered the claim and rejected the plea for promotion based on its merits and ability which is the sole criteria for promotion. 4. This Court finds no infirmity in the order under challenge. Petitioner having failed to show merit and ability cannot seek relief sought for. Finding no merit, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ts To 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (POLICE) DEPT. FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHENNAI-4. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRICHY RANGE, TRICHY. 1 cc To Mr.S.Ravi, Advocate, SR.7072. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.7425. Writ Petition No.37424 of 2006 VSV(CO) RVL 22.02.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/