A.R.Vigneshwaran v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.04.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.A.No.623 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.6063 of 2018 1.A.R.Vigneshwaran 2.P.Murugan 3.S.Kadhar Habeeb Syed Mohammed 4.G.Jayakumar 5.R.Manimaran 6.P.Sudhagar 7.S.Udhykumar 8.K.Ashok 9.Jayakumar 10.D.Balaji 11.T.Balakrishnan 12.C.Jothivel 13.R.Selvam 14.S.Krishnamoorthy 15.K.Masilamani 16.J.Pounkumar 17.Raja 18.M.Vediyappan 19.K.Dinesh 20.P.Raja 21.S.Sabari Iyyappan 22.K.Suresh 23.G.Iyyappan 24.S.Sathish 25.V.Venkatesan 26.A.Ranjith 27.T.Dhanasekar 28.G.Udhayakumar 29.P.Kulasekaran 30.K.Kesavan 31.A.S.Raja 32.K.P.Bharathiraja 33.M.Lakshmanakumar 34.A.Raji 35.G.Karthik 36.G.Anandbabu 37.S.Sarathkumar
38.D.Raja 39.D.Rajasekar 40.R.Mohammed Ismail 41.S.Selvaraj 42.G.Sakthimani 43.V.Haribabu 44.S.Arnold 45.P.Saravanan 46.M.Muthukumar 47.D.Arunsingh 48.D.Dharmaraj 49.M.K.Balamurugan 50.R.Ashokkumar 51.T.Dhinakar 52.P.Perumal 53.M.Ramkumar 54.A.Mohammed Ali 55.J.Anbhazhagan 56.M.Vinothkumar 57.R.Karthick 58.E.Chinnadurai 59.S.Saranraj 60.K.Premanand 61.J.Chandrasekar 62.B.Kirubakaran 63.E.Sooriyan 64.S.Mohammed Musthafa 65.D.Deva 66.M.Karthikeyan 67.R.Jagan 68.R.Hariharan 69.K.Sakthivel 70.S.Vinothan 71.S.Vinothkumar 72.R.Murali 73.V.Karthikeyan 74.M.Raju 75.E.Varatharaj 76.M.Panchatcharam 77.B.Valarmanikandan 78.K.Mahendran 79.R.Viswanathan 80.G.Loganathan 81.K.Anishkumar 82.R.Ganesan 83.S.Santhosh 84.R.Yuvaraj 85.N.Sathishkumar 86.V.Gopi 87.A.Karthik
88.A.Thiyagarajan 89.S.Madhankumar 90.L.Rajendran 91.M.A.Venkatesan 92.A.Vignesh 93.M.Esakkimuthu 94.S.Sathish 95.P.Dhayalakrishnan 96.P.Ranjith 97.J.Sarathkumar 98.T.Dhayanithi 99.D.Premkumar 100.E.Giridharan ...
Appellants -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Home Department (Police), Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
3.The Chair Person, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, P.T.Chengalvarayan Maligai, Anna Salai- Chennai-2.
...
Respondents Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1298 of 2018 dated 23.01.2018.
Writ Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constition of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to calling for the entire records relating to the impugned G.O. passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No.820 Home (Police IX) Department dated 23.09.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to follow the single system recruitment by implementing G.O.Ms. No.938- Home (Service-G) Department Dated 03.05.1990 passed by the 1st respondent in so far relates to the petitioners are concerned.
For Appellants ::
Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents::
Ms.Narmadha Sampath, Addl.Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, Spl.GP
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) The appellants herein have filed W.P.No.1298 of 2018 questioning the validity of G.O.Ms.No.820 Home (Police IX) Department dated 23.09.2009, praying to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to follow the single system recruitment by implementing G.O.Ms.No.938 Home (ServiceG) Department dated 03.05.1990. 2.As per G.O.Ms.No.938 dated 03.05.1990, after training, the Police Constable will have to serve in the battalion for the first three years and thereafter they will be shifted to the District Armed Reserve where they will serve for one year and in the fifth year, the police constable will get shifted to Taluk Police and this will be the regular career plan for a police constable in future. As per G.O.Ms.No.820 dated 23.09.
2009, the said period has been enhanced from five years to ten years. After hearing the parties, the said writ petition was dismissed holding that only if any constable recruited requires transfer or conversion to the Armed Reserve Police, the said condition of ten years stay in the Special Police Battalion has been imposed and it is not correct on the part of the appellants herein to say that they are aggrieved for the reason that they were recruited in the year 2016.
3.Challenging the order passed in the writ petition, the present appeal has been filed.
4.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the year 2017, the Government has recruited 15,664 Police Constables Grade-II for the post of Armed Reserve Police as directed recruitment, without considering the request of the appellants for placing them as Armed Reserve Police. He also submitted that in this connection, the appellants have made a representation dated 08.01.2018 to the authorities and the same has not been considered till now.
5.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Addl.Advocate General appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 6.First of all, this Court is of the firm opinion that filing of this writ appeal is premature. It appears that the representation submitted by the appellants before the authorities, is pending consideration. Without there being any order passed in the said representation, the appellants cannot pray for quashing the order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, till any order is passed in the representation in accordance with law and any decision is taken in the matter, the appellants cannot challenge the order passed by the learned single Judge at this juncture, as it is a premature one. If any order is passed on the representation and the same is found to be contrary to the settled principles, viz.principles of equity,
the appellants are at liberty to approach this Court. 7.The learned Addl.Advocate General has submitted that the appellants may be directed to file a fresh representation and if such representation is filed, the same will be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.
8.Recording the above submission made by the learned Addl.Advocate General, the appellants herein are directed to file a fresh representation expressing their grievances, to the respondents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of its receipt.
9.The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KM To 1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department (Police), Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
3.The Chair Person, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, P.T.Chengalvarayan Maligai, Anna Salai- Chennai-2.
+1cc to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate SR.No.26756 W.A.No.623 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.6063 of 2018 SS(CO) GN(07/05/2018)