IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.23227 of 2006 O.A.No.7441 of 1996 C.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Director General of Police, Chennai-2. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore Rural, Coimbatore. ... Respondents This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.7441 of 1996 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for a Certiorari, to quash the memorandum issued by the Director General of Police in his proceedings No.Rc.No.554 NGB/2/95, dated 23.09.1996 and quash the same and consequently promote the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police by screening with all consequential service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.K. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.V.Viswanathan, Additional Government Pleader JUDGMENT The petitioner has challenged the order of the Director General of Police, dated 23.09.1996 and consequently prayed for a direction to promote as Sub-Inspector of Police, with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner joined the police department as Grade II Police Constable on 15.9.1969. Thereafter, he was promoted as Grade I Police on 12.01.1973. He was further promoted as Headconstable on 06.05.1981. In the year 1991, when the Range Promotion Board was convened, the Tribunal had granted interim stay of the Range Promotion Board. When the Range Promotion Board was convened in the year 1995, a batch of Original Applications were filed before the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1565 of 1995 etc., The Full Bench of the Tribunal, gave a specific direction to regularise some of the out of seniority sub-Inspectors, who had put in long number of service and some other directions for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of police. After absorbing them, the Director General of Police, first respondent issued another memorandum, dated 23.09.1996 for convening the Range Promotion Board. According to the petitioner, though there were 30 vacancies in Coimbatore range, 136 persons were asked to participate in the Range Promotion Board which was over and above the normal ratio viz.,1:4, applicable for preparation of the promotion list. 3. The petitioner inter alia has contended that the impugned memo, dated 23.09.1996 of the Director General of Police, stating that all the Head Constables and temporary Sub Inspectors of Police, who were promoted as regular Head Constables upto 10.04.1987, were eligible to attend the test, is contrary to the instructions issued by the Director General of Police, in memo, dated 21.02.1995, wherein, a restriction was placed to the number of eligible candidates to a multiple of 3 to 5 times out of total number of vacancies. It is the further contention of the petitioner that as per Rule 3(d) of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, only the DIG of Police concerned shall decide the number of Head Constables to attend the written test in the Range Promotion Board, on the basis of the list to be prepared by the concerned Superintendent of Police and therefore, the directions issued by the first respondent, enabling Head Constables and temporary Sub Inspectors of Police over and above the ratio, to participate in the Range Promotion Board is contrary to the rules. He also further submitted that allowing 136 persons to participate in the Range Promotion Board is contrary to the State and Subordinate Service Rules. 4. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the Full Bench of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No.2176 of 1991, dated 07.08.1992 has held that the zone of consideration would be limited only to a multiple of 3 to 5 times of the number of vacancies and the persons to be considered would be determined on the basis of their seniority in the combined seniority list. Since the number of persons, who attended the Range Promotion Board for the post of Sub Inspectors of Police, exceeded the multiple of 3 to 4 times (30 vacancies and 136 persons were invited by the Range Promotion Board), the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the Full Bench decision in O.A.No.2176 of 1991, dated 07.08.1992 and in a batch of O.A.No.488 of 1994 etc., dated 18.01.1995. 5. Placing reliance on a decision rendered in a batch of O.A.No.1565 of 1995, etc., dated 13.11.1995, the petitioner has further contended that the restriction that can be imposed on the number of candidates to attend the test should be of reasonable multiples to the total number of vacancies available. For the above said reasons, he has prayed to quash the impugned order. 6. Mr.V.Viswanathan, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner had participated in the selection process and failed to secure the minimum marks to qualify himself to attend the drill test and viva-voce test to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. He further submitted that having participated in the selection process and failed to secure the marks, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the memorandum. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. While disposing of the batch of the Original Applications in O.A.No.2176 of 1991, dated 07.08.1992 (batch of 350 cases), the Tribunal had observed as follows: "Regular promotion of Head Constable as Sub-Inspectors of Police is however not based on seniority. Qualifying service of four years are eligible to appeal for selection. The selection has been solely based on the tests  the written test followed by a viva-voce test and drill. Thus the promotion is made as if it is direct recruitment except that persons eligible are those who have worked as Head Constables for four years." 8. As per Rule 3(d) of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, Range Promotion Boards have to be convened in the respective Police Ranges to conduct promotion tests to the eligible Head Constables for drawing up a gradation list of the candidates, for promoting the top ranking Head Constables, depending upon the available vacancies. In that process, Head Constables have been subjected to written test, besides viva-voce examination, including a drill test, for those who were successful in the written test. As per the directions of the Director General of Police, dated 23.09.1996, the Range Promotion Board was convened to include the names of the Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police, consequent on the orders of the Government in raising the promotion quota from 42% to 63% as one time measure for the year 1994. 9. It is the specific case of the respondents that though the petitioner, a senior most Head Constable had participated in the selection process, did not qualify himself in the promotional test and therefore his name was not included in the 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The petitioner having participated in the written test as per the memo of the Director General of Police, and failed to secure the minimum marks for attending the drill test and viva-voce test, has come forward to challenge the memo issued by the respondents on the ground that it is contrary to statutory rules and various orders of the Tribunal. 10. It is well settled that having acquiesced to the selection process and taken a chance for selection, the unsuccessful candidate cannot turn around and challenge the process of selection, except in the case of bias or undue favourism. Eventhen, the unsuccessful candidate has to plead and prove bias malafide. It is worthwhile to extract some of the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court on this aspect. 11. In Madanlal v. State of J & K reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088, the unsuccessful candidates challenged the process of selection of the District Munsifs in the State of Jammu and Kashmir undertaken by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission on the ground, inter alia that they faired well in the written examination and they were not selected. Besides, they also alleged bias and mala fide in the process of assessment. The Supreme Court rejected the contention and while dealing the locus of the unsuccessful candidates, who had acquiescence themselves to the selection process, at paragraph 8, held as follows: "The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted." 12. In Union of India v. N.Chandrasekharan reported in 1998 (3) SCC 694, selection to the post of Assistant Purchase officer, was challenged. The unsuccessful candidates have challenged the process of selection. The Tribunal quashed the promotions made on the basis of the panel of Assistant Purchase Officers. While allowing the appeals preferred by the Union of India, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 13, held as follows: "It is not in dispute that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected, by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and that the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report." 13. The Supreme Court in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh reported in 2008 (4) SCC 619, at Paragraph 35, held that unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process, except in certain cases where exceptions have been carved out by the Supreme Court. 14. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 27.11.2008 S. MANIKUMAR, J. kua To 1. The Director General of Police, Chennai-2. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore Rural, Coimbatore. W.P.No.23227 of 2006 27.11.2008