R.Ranjith Singh 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.4535, 4539 & 4540 of 2021 1.R.Ranjith Singh 2.P.Vijaycharles 3.S.Anandakumar 4.T.Sathyamurthy 5.K.Nagarajan 6.B.Sivakumar 7.V.V.Sivakumar 8.C.Vetriselvan 9.J.Athisayaraj 10.S.Prabakar 11.M.Bharathimohan 12.C.Sivasankaran 13.K.M.Maniraj 14.S.Raju 15.G.Senthilkumar 16.C.Vijayabaskar 17.K.Balusamy 18.P.Kaliappan 19.S.Kumaresan 20.G.Prabhu 21.T.Rajendran 22.R.Perundurai Murugan 23.M.Visvakhumar 24.P.Ramakrishnan 25.N.Panchalingam 26.A.Prasannavenkatesh Page No.1 of 12
27.C.Murugaiyan 28.E.Samson 29.T.Panneer Selvam 30.P.Rajendran 31.S.Saravana Prabhu 32.Dr.T.Kannan 33.N.Somasundaram 34.K.Sivakumar 35.B.Manikandan 36.R.Baranitharan 37.D.Saravanakumar 38.B.Jayashankar 39.A.V.Srinivasan 40.D.Babu Rajendra Bose 41.R.K.Parthasarathy 42.J.Elavarasan 43.J.Vetri Selvan 44.M.Kumar 45.S.Vijayan 46.S.Vinayagam 47.D.Thangaraj 48.S.Kumaravel 49.N.Velmurugan 50.M.Arul Pragash 51.J.George Miller Ponraj 52.M.Kalayanaraman 53.A.Saravanan 54.K.Nivasan 55.R.Palani 56.R.Gerald Robinson 57.P.Venkatachalam 58.B.Jawahar 59.D.Robin Gnanasingh 60.S.Vijayakumar 61.E.Lyidtgzen 62.R.Boominathan 63.K.T.Rajan Babu 64.M.Krishnamoorthy Page No.2 of 12
65.P.Chandra Mohan 66.B.Kumar 67.C.Senthilkumar 68.R.Arunprasad 69.P.Mariappan 70.R.Alagukannan 71.S.Saravanadevendran ... 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.M.R.Manjula 4.G.Pushpalatha 5.A.Vendamathi 6.S. Rekha 7.K. Manjula 8.V. Senthil Vadivu 9.G.S.Tamizharasi 10.S. Lakshmi 11.A. Naseema 12.S. Manjula 13.Priyadharshini 14.S. Rajkumar 15.S. Selvakumar 16.Clastin David 17.G. Chandru 18.K. Pugazhendhi 19.K. Deepak Kumar 20.J. Shivakumar 21.T. Govindaraj 22.N. Sivakumar 23.M. Mohamed Barakathulla 24.P. Palani Page No.3 of 12
25.E. Velu 26.L. Chitra 27.S. Loganathan 28.P. Deepa 29.P. Srinivasan 30.N. K. Vanitha 31.N. Selvin Santhakumari 32.R. Silambuchelvan 33.K. Devaraj 34.A. Mukesh Rao 35.M. Ravi 36.R. Manogaran 37.S. Sreemathy 38.S. Sasikala 39.K. Settu 40.S. Kannippan 41.P. Kamala Kannan 42.C. Ratnavel Pandian 43.A. Kannan 44.M. Saathuramesh 45.M. Mohamed Idiris 46.G. Alagar 47.S. Jasmine Mumtaj 48.S. Kamali 49.S. Vasumathi 50.S. Ramalakshmi 51.B. Senthilkumar 52.M. Senthilkumaran 53.M. Muthu 54.P. Muruganandam 55.K. Amutha 56.S. Rajasekar 57.C. Vellaiappan 58.I.Paul Yesu Dhasan 59.S. Rajadurai 60.K. Kumaraguru 61.P. Rajesh Khanna 62.A. Ramraj Page No.4 of 12
63.M. Nagalakshmi 64.R. Jeyachandran 65.K. Adivel 66.I. Rajesh 67.M.Kannan 68.P. Jeen Kumar 69.TMT. M.Naga Kumari 70.TMT. S. Indira 71.TMT. S. Velkani 72.TMT. S. Angayar Kanni 73.M. Elavarrsu 74.M. Chandran 75.P. Mariappan 76.S. Suresh Kumar 77.B.Kavitha 78.P.Jagadeesan 79.S.Jayaraman 80.R.Rajkumar 81.Raadhu Raji 82.B. Jackulin 83.V. Venkatachalam 84.B. Victor 85.V. Udayachandran 86.G. Kosalai Raman 87.P. Padmavathi 88.K. Chandra 89.M. Jayanthi 90.M. Latha 91.N. Muthukumar 92.M. Saravanan 93.S. Nagarathinam 94.P. Sharmila 95.P. Jagatheeswaran 96.B. Manivel 97.V. Jagadeesan 98.B. Ramesh (R3 to R98 impleaded vide order dt.11.07.2022 made in W.M.P.No.15840 of 2021) ... Respondents Page No.5 of 12
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 Mr.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 R98)
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.6 of 12
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.7 of 12
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.8 of 12
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.9 of 12
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.10 of 12
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.11 of 12
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
klt and W.M.P.Nos.4535, 4539 & 4540 of 2021 24.07.2023 Page No.12 of 12