Madras High CourtWP/8982/2015disposed of

V.Rajaganesh v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2015-10-13Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13..10..2015

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P. Nos. 8982, 6526 and 6727 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1,2,2,2 and 3 of 2015 ---------- W.P.No.8982 of 2015:

1 V.Rajaganesh 2 M.Balaguru 3 V.Kathiresan 4 Suresh Kumar 5 R.Arivalagan 6 P.Saravanan 7 S.Radhakrishnan 8 B.Praveenkumar 9 S.Ganesan 10 G.Sai Ganesh 11 S.Nazeer 12 G.Sankara Subramanian 13 K.Elayaraja 14 V.Velumani 15 P.Jayalakshmi 16 P.Mohan 17 P.Natarajan 18 S.Vijayakumar 19 P.Nedumaran 20 N.Sasirajan 21 H.Saravanan 22 M.Ramachandran 23 A.Kalidas 24 S.Sivakumar 25 E.Anandakumar 26 R.Senthilkumar 27 P.R.Senthilkumar 28 E.Senthilrajamohan 29 K.Dhanalakshmi 30 J.Prabu 31 S.Rajaprabu 32 J.Krishnaraj 33 R.Yuvaraj 34 B.Senthilprabu 35 R.Senthilnathan 36 M.Rajesh 37 S.Balaji 38 N.Udayakumar

39 P.Kamaraj 40 P.Manikumar 41 S.Dhamodharan 42 R.S.Saravanan 43 N.Ramarajan 44 M.Selvam 45 J.Asokan 46 G.Senthil Kumar 47 K.Senthil Kumar 48 M.Sivasubramaniam 49 J.Raman 50 K.Rajaraman 51 M.M.Selvaragavan ..Petitioners in W.P.No.8982/2015 W.P. No. 6727 of 2015:

38 N.Udayakumar 39 P.Kamaraj 40 P.Manikumar 41 S.Dhamodharan 42 R.S.Saravanan 43 N.Ramarajan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6727/2015 W.P.No.6526 of 2015:

1.M.Selvam 2.J.Asokan 3.G.Senthil Kumar 4.K.Senthil Kumar 5.M.Sivasubramaniam 6.J.Raman 7.K.Rajaraman 8.M.M.Selvaragavan .. Petitioners in W.P.No.6526/2015

Versus

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Home (Police-3) Department The Secretariat Chennai-5.

2. The Director General of Police (Law and Order) Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore Chennai-4.

..Respondents in all WPs.

3. The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) Anna Salai Chennai.

...3rd Respondent in W.P.No.8982 of 2015 W.P.No.8982 of 2015: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned Notification No.1/2015 dated 8.2.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to post the petitioners as Sub Inspectors of Police (Taluk) by way of Transfer/ conversion to category one together with age relaxation as applicable and with interse seniority within the time frame.

W.P.No.6727 of 2015: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant conversion to the petitioners from their respective category 2 (Armed Reserve) / category 3 (Tamil Nadu Special Police/Battalion) to Category 1 (Taluk police/Law and Order) in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police together with age relaxation and consequent interse seniority within the time frame.

W.P.No.6526: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant conversion to the petitioners from their respective category 2 (Armed Reserve)/Category 3 (Tamil Nadu Special Police/Battalion) to Catgegory 1 (Taluk police/ Law and Order) in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police together with age relaxation and consequent interse seniority within the time frame.

----------- For Petitioners :: Mr.K.Ravi Anatha Padmanaban For Respondents :: Mr. P.H.Arvindh Pandian assisted by Mr.STS.Murthy Government Pleader Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan AGP Mr.V.Shanmughasundar Government Advocate COMMON ORDER (Judgment of Court was made by The Honourable Chief Justice) The petitioners who occupied the post of Sub Inspectors in the Police department having been recruited in the year 2008, seek the prayer of assailing the impugned notification No.1/2015 dated 8.2.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent for fresh recruitment of Sub Inspectors coupled with a direction that the petitioners should be posted as Sub Inspectors (Taluk) by way of Transfer/ conversion to category one together with age relaxation as applicable. The petitioners at present are in categories-II and III. There is no salary difference between the three categories. The three categories are Law and Order, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion.

2. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the persons who have been recruited under Notification dated 08.02.2015 may be appointed in Category-I prior to the conversion of the petitioners to Category-I and thus, may lose out on that opportunity. It is their case that they are eligible as Category-I as is the past practice, having done their Law training and becoming eligible in the year 2013, after completing 5 years of service.

Despite repeated representations, no action has been taken on the aspect of conversion.

3. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner has nothing to do with the notification dated 08.02.2015 which is

for fresh recruitment. It is pleaded that the petitioners cannot seek conversion to Category-I under direct vacancies and conversion is a matter of policy decision not covered by any Acts or Rules, but is one of discretion. The Government Order relied upon by the petitioners is stated to be one such act of ''one time measure.''

4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the endeavour to assail the fresh recruitment process vide Notification dated 08.02.2015 by the petitioners is misconceived.

The petitioners cannot assail the fresh recruitment. The only grievance the petitioners can agitate is their plea for conversion from Category-II to Category-I. That is not in any manner related to the notification dated 08.02.2015.

5. As far as the request for conversion by the petitioners is concerned, the same is pending consideration.

6. We are of the view that it is necessary to give a quietus to this issue by taking a decision within a time bound manner so that the petitioners know the fate of their representation. If the representation is accepted, nothing survives, but if it is rejected with reasons, that may give rise to further cause of action. We thus direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. We may note that it makes no difference that the relevant rules having been framed or that according to the respondents it is a matter of posting, since it cannot be disputed that up to the year 2007, this practice has been followed by issuing G.Os, each time claiming to be a one-time measure.

7. On our query, learned Additional Advocate General states that the proposal will emanate from the second respondent and then the final decision will be taken by the first respondent.

8. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

9. Copy of the order be sent to the first and second respondent on or before Friday (16.10.2015). sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CS-IV) / TRUE COPY / SUB-ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ksr

1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu (Police-3) Department The Secretariat Chennai-5.

2. The Director General of Police (Law and Order) Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore Chennai-4.

3. The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) Anna Salai Chennai.

+1 CC to Mr.Ravi Anatha Padmanaban Advocate. SR.NO. 56096 W.P. Nos.8982, 6526 and 6727 of 2015 CO-MG JD 16/10/2015