A.Siva Ananth v. The Additional Chief Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.07.2023 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD and W.M.P.Nos.4569, 4570 & 4571 of 2021 1.A.Siva Ananth 2.K.Mariyappan 3.M.Kumaravel 4.T.Thiyagarajan 5.P.Wiknesvaran 6.K.Kalaichelvan 7.R. Sivakumar 8.R. Saravanan 9.B. Rajinikanth 10.M.Selvaraj 11.S. Subash 12.P. Periaiah 13.P.Pandithurai 14.A.Kathirvel 15.K.Sundarapandiyan 16.A.Nagarajan 17.D.Sekar Singh 18.P.V. Naveen 19.M.Chiranjeevi 20.K. Sivasenthilkumar 21.D.Kannan 22.T.Shanmugavelu 23.K. Kulasekaran 24.S.Manoharan 25.A.Ravikumar Page No.1 of 10
26.M.Ravi 27.S. Senthil 28.T.A.Dhavamani 29.K.Balaji 30.K.Selvam 31.G.Rameshkumar 32.K.Gobi 33.P.Kumar 34.V.Rajavel 35.M.Gunasekaran 36.K.Ambethkar 37.S.Manickavel 38.T.Parimannan 39.M.N. Elango 40.R.Vivekanandan 41.K.Mohan Doss 42.N.Ravindiran 43.M.Sathish 44.G.Muthusubramanian 45.P.Suresh 46.P.Gobinath 47.K.Thangaraj 48.D.Selvakan David 49.P. Loganathan 50.Kathiravan P 51.S.Alagarsamy 52.K.Madasamy 53.P.Thirumalairajan 54.G.Dillibabu 55.I.Sivakumar 56.C.Ravi 57.P.K.Sivakumar 58.P. Saravanan 59.S.Vijayakumar 60.S.Anbukarasan 61.E.Saravanan 62.K.Sudhakar 63.M.Rabinson Page No.2 of 10
64.R.Ganesh Babu 65.C.Muthukumar 66.R.Balamurugan 67.B.S.Venkatesh Kumar 68.K.S.Anbuchelvan 69.M.Ramani 70.R.Senthil 71.P.Arumugam ... Petitioners
Versus
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-600 009.
3.A.Vahitha Begam 4.T.Kanimozhi 5.G.Sakthivel 6.M.Jaganathan 7.R.Paulraj 8.K.Rameshkumar 9.P.Raja 10.Ganavel 11.Bernard Xavier 12.A.Lakshmilatha 13.R.Esther 14.A.Dharmalingam 15.P.Parthiban 16.A.Ranjana 17.N.sheela 18.K.Indirani 19.M.Pandi 20.S.Vallinayagam 21.K.Senguttuvan 22.M.C.Ramesh ... Respondents (R18 to R22 impleaded vide order dt.11.07.2022 made in WMP.No.15721 of 2021) Page No.3 of 10
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayed to issue Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent's impugned proceedings dated 30.01.2021 in Rc.No.284045/ Rec.II(1)/2011, and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to retain the seniority list of the petitioners' dated 06.07.2009. For Petitioners : Mr. S.Prabakaran, Senior Counsel, for MA.Gouthaman For Respondents : Mr. P. Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General. Asst., by M/s.C.Meera Arumugam (for R1 & R2) : Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, Senior Counsel, for Mr. S. Sivakumar (for R3 to R22)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned proceedings dated 30.01.2021 in Rc.No.284045/ Rec.II(1)/2011 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same and seeking a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to retain the seniority list of the petitioners' dated 06.07.2009.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they were selected for the post of Sub Inspectors of Police during 1997-1998 through a direct recruitment by G.O.Ms.1317, Home (Police-9), Department, dated 08.06.1997. The selection was made on a zonal basis, with a separate cut-off mark fixed for Page No.4 of 10
each zone. After completion of the training, examinations were also conducted for two batches separately in the years 1999 & 2000. The seniority was fixed based on their date of joining duty as per Rule 25(a) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. But, the petitioners' seniority was not fixed as per the said Rule. While so, since Tr.S.R.G.Thayal and 13 others seniority were not fixed properly, they have filed a Writ Appeal No.1039 of 2011 and obtained order dated 13.04.2023 from this Court and got their re-fixation of seniority as per the rule. The said fact was clearly mentioned in the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent vide letter R.C.No.284045/Rec.II(1)/2011, dated 30.01.2021, but, in which also the petitioners' names were not mentioned in the seniority list. hence, challenging the same the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners.
3.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents Nos.3 to 33 and perused the entire records of the case.
Page No.5 of 10
4.It appears that though the second respondent passed the impugned order, revising the seniority list of 1997-1998 batch persons, in respect of directly recruited Sub Inspectors of Police, in paragraph No.10, the second respondent has specifically requested that all the Unit Officers to communicate the impugned order to the concerned Sub-Inspectors of 199798 batch working in their Districts/Cities/Units and get objections from them on or before 10.02.2021. However, without filing the objections to the draft revised seniority list prepared by the second respondent vide impugned order, the petitioners have come forward with the present Writ Petition, challenging the impugned order.
5.When this was pointed out, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly acceded to the fact that the petitioners have not filed any objections to the impugned order. He referred to paragraphs Nos.10 & 11 of the impugned order, dated 30.01.2021 passed by the second respondent, which reads as under:
"10. The Unit Officers are requested to communicate the draft seniority list to the concerned Sub-Inspectors of 1997-98 batch working in their Districts/Cities/Units through the Sub-Divisional Officers/Concerned DSPs and get their acknowledgment and send the same to the office on or Page No.6 of 10
before 05.02.2021 besides displaying the same in the notice board. Further, the Unit Officers concerned are requested to instruct the Sub-Inspectors of 199798 batch to file the objections if any before 10.02.2021. If they have no objection regarding draft seniority of Sub-Inspectors of 1997-98 batch, a letter to this effect may be obtained and sent to Chief Office on or before 15.022021. If any of the Sub-Inspectors of Police belonging to 1997-98 batch is on deputation, the parent unit officer is requested to get the objections from them and send if to Chief Office.
11. After consolidation of all objections and other due considerations, based on the Government Order referred above and as per law, seniority list be prepared."
6.The learned Additional Advocate General Counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.1 & 2 would fairly submit that as per paragraph No.10 of the impugned order, the petitioners may be directed to file their objections before the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such objections being filed, as per paragraph No.11, the second respondent may be directed to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with the law, within a period of four weeks thereafter and thereupon, the first respondent may be directed to pass the final orders and till such time, the impugned order may also be ordered to be kept in abeyance.
Page No.7 of 10
7.In the present Writ Petition though the petitioners have now challenged the present impugned revised seniority list of 1997-98 on various grounds, This Court directs the petitioners to make their objections to the said impugned order passed by the second respondent; and the same may be considered on merits, accordance with law and appropriate orders be passed by the first respondent and the first respondent is also directed to pass final order; and till such time, the impugned order is ordered to be kept in abeyance.
8.Considering the submissions now made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents Nos.1 & 2, without adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court feels it appropriate to pass the following order: (i) The petitioners are directed to submit their objections as called for in paragraph No.10 of the impugned order, in respect of the Revised Seniority List of 1997-98 before the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) On such objections being filed, as per paragraph No.11 of the impugned order, the second respondent is directed to consolidate all the Page No.8 of 10
objections and consider the same and pass orders in accordance with the law, within a period of four weeks;
(iii) Thereafter, the first respondent is directed to pass final orders based on the orders being passed by the second respondent. Till such time, the impugned order being passed by the second respondent dated 30.01.2021 in Rc.NO.284045/Rec.II(1)/2011, is hereby ordered to be kept in abeyance.
9.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions and observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-Speaking order klt To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-600 009.
Page No.9 of 10
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
klt and W.M.P.Nos.4569, 4570 & 4571 of 2021 24.07.2023 Page No.10 of 10