A.R.Vigneshwaran v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.01.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.1298 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.1627 to 1629 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 ... Petitioners Vs 1 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department (Police), Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
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 Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call 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 Petitioners :
Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents:
Ms.Narmadha Sampath Additional Advocate General VIII Assisted by Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the validity of G.O.Ms. No.820 Home (Police IX) Department dated 23.09.2009, 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 (Service-G) Department, dated 03.05.1990.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the Government took a policy decision in G.O.Ms. No.938 - Home (Service-G) Department, Dated 03.05.1990, stating that while two level pattern of recruitment is being followed in
respect of Police Constables viz., Armed Police Battalions and Taluk Police (By enlisting Police Constables first in Armed Reserve and then transferring them to Taluk Police), it was specifically mentioned in G.O.Ms. No.938 - Home (Service-G) Department, Dated 03.05.1990 that after training, the Police Constable will serve in the battalion for the first three years. Thereafter, they will be shifted to District Armed Reserve where they will serve for one year. 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.
3. Adding further, learned counsel for the petitioner averred that when the said G.O. has been followed since 03.05.1990, all of a sudden, the impugned G.O.Ms. No.820 Home (Pol.IX) Department dated 23.09.2009 has been issued enhancing the five years period to ten years while recruiting Tamilnadu Special Police [Constable] and with a minimum period of ten years, if they are willing to go to Armed Reserve of Districts / Cities, then, they will be placed at the bottom of the list in Armed Reserve of Districts / Cities, where they will remain for a minimum period of one year and then they will be transferred to Taluk Police depending upon vacancies.
In view of the enhancement of ten years, all the Police Constables, who are recruited in the Tamil Nadu Police Battalion are not even able to serve any time and even during Sunday also they are not able to visit their relatives, who are in native. Moreover, they have no time to find a suitable match, as it is rigorously affecting their personal life, a direction be issued to the respondents to follow the previous G.O.Ms. No.938 - Home (Service-G) Department, Dated 03.05.1990, fixing five years in service for the purpose of taking conversion or shifting from Police battalion to Armed Reserve, as the petitioners were recruited in the year 2016.
4. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners having come to know that they have to serve for ten long years in the Special Police Battalion, after training, they have given a representation to slice down the period of their stay in Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion from ten years to five years. The said representation also, has not been, till date taken up for consideration. Hence, if this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer, a direction may be issued to consider the pending representation, he pleaded.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record.
6. This Court is not inclined to accept either of the prayer, the reason is, after issuance of the first G.O.Ms. No.938 - Home (Service-G) Department, Dated 03.05.1990, the Government, after taking into account the various aspects have thought fit to impose a condition of ten years stay in the
Special Police Battalion, if any constable recruited requires transfer or conversion to the Armed Reserve Police. Therefore, the petitioners, who sought conversion to go to local police have to comply the condition mentioned in the G.O.Ms. No.820 Home (Police IX) Department dated 23.09.2009, as it has been followed from 23.09.2009. The petitioners for the reason that they were recruited in the year 2016, cannot say that they are aggrieved by the said G.O., and the same cannot be accepted. Therefore, this Court is not able to find any merit to entertain this Writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CO) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar sai / ssd To 1 The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department (Police), Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
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.4921 W.P.No.1298 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.1627 to 1629 of 2018 nr 27/02/2018