← Library
Madras High CourtWP/3409/2011dismissed

P.Veerabadran, v. The Director General Of Police

2018-12-06Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.12.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR WP.No.3409 of 2011 P.Veerabadran Petitioner Vs 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai-4 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai Respondents Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed, under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Respondent, relating to the Memorandum in Rc.No.148505/NGB.IV(1)/10, dated 09.11.2010 and to quash the same and to direct the 1st Respondent to consider the name of the Petitioner to include in the 'C' list of Sub Inspectors for the year 1998 and to award all consequential benefits.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.S.Soundara Rajan For Respondent :

Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, GA

ORDER

The prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash the proceedings of the 1st Respondent, dated 09.11.2010 and to direct the 1st Respondent to consider the name of the Petitioner to include in the 'C' list of Sub Inspectors for the year 1998 and to award all consequential benefits.

2. This court heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.

3. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner, who was a Head Constable at the relevant point of time, was fit for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Polilce for the year 1998 and the Petitioner had to undergo promotion tests ,as per the memorandum, dated 29.08.1998 and the marks for promotion tests allocated for writtesn test was 30, drill test was 10 and viva voce was 10 and for ssessment of service, the mark was 30 and for clea D-sheet, the mark was 10

and for reward, the mark was 20. The Petitioner was not called for the promotion tests in view of the punishment of black mark imposed under Rule 3(a) charges on 15.11.1997. Hence, the Petitioner had filed an appeal against the said punishment and the same was modified as deferred black mark for six months on 12.11.1998. Thereafter, the Petitioner had filed OA.No.595 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to include his name in the list of Head Constable fit for promotion as Sub Inspector (Local) for the year 1998, which was disposed of by this Court, directing the 1st Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner. Thereafter, 1st Respondent had directed to constitute a Special Promotion Board and conducted the written test, drill test, viva voce and scrutiny of life. In the said tests, the Petitioner was awarded 57.50 marks out of

100. However, by the impugned order, the 1st Respondent had rejected the claim of the Petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed, seeking the relief as stated above. 4.

The learned Government Advocate for the Respondents, by filing a counter affidavit, has contended that while the promotion Board was convened in 1998 for the drawal of 'C' list of Head Constables for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police (Taluk), 63 eligible Head Constables attended the written test held on 16.10.1998 and the drill test and viva voce test held on 02.11.1998 and 3.11.1998 respectively The 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors for the year 1998 was drawn on 09.11.1998 for 32 vacancies of Sub Inspectors of Police. Those Head Constables who had scored 73.50 marks and above in the prootion test had been included in the 'C' list. Whereas the Petitioner had obtained only 57.50 marks out of 100 and he did not acquire the qualified marks for promotion in the year 1998. Hence, the request of the Petitioner was rightly rejected.

5. As rightly stated in the counter affidavit, the Petitioner did not acquire the qualified marks for promotion in the year 1998 and the Petitioner scored 57.50 marks out of 100. When compared with the marks of the Head Constables, who attended the promotion test and scored above 73.50 marks, the marks obtained by the Petitioner was below the cut off marks secured by the selected candidates and hence, the representation of the Petitioner was rightly rejected by the impugned order. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, as there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, which warrants interference by this Court. Consequently, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

Srcm To 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai-4 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai +1cc to Government Pleader sr.no.85472 WP.No.3409 of 2011 mr(co) nr 23/01/2019