S.Manikanda v. The Director General Of Police

2023:MHC:5278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.11.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH and W.M.P.No.28922 of 2023 S.Manikanda

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB), Egmore, Chennai - 600 006.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents for selection and appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police based on the notification issued by the 2nd respondent in Notification No.01/2023 dated 05.05.2023, by allowing him to participate in the next stage of selection Certificate Verification, Physical Measurement Test, etc. under BC-Wards quota, in consideration of representation submitted by the petitioner dated 29.09.2023.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For R1 : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG assisted by Ms.Sowmi Dattan

ORDER

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The short ground on which the present Writ Petition has been filed is that the petitioner, who had participated in the written examination conducted for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under Backward Class (BC) community, pursuant to the notification dated 05.05.2023, has not been selected and by making a comparison to another candidate belonging to BC community, who had secured 57.50 marks and younger in age to the petitioner, he claims that since he has also scored 57.50 marks and is elder in age to the other BC community candidate, he is entitled for selection. 2/5

3. Through the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the learned Additional Advocate General had substantiated that the petitioner was awarded 57 marks only, after he was given the benefit of 0.50 marks each for 3 questions disputed by him. Since the petitioner is still short of 0.50 marks than the other BC community candidate, who had secured 57.50 marks, his disqualification cannot be found fault with.

4. Hence, there are no merits in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

30.11.2023 Index:Yes Speaking order hvk To 1.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB), Egmore, Chennai - 600 006.

3/5

4/5

M.S.RAMESH,J.

hvk 30.11.2023 5/5