R. Varadaraj v. The Government Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.09.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and W.M.P.Nos.38233, 38234 and 38235 of 2025 R. Varadaraj Son of Rathinavel 23, West Park Road, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai - 600030 Petitioner Vs 1.The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary to the Government Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009

3.G Venkatraman Ad-hoc Director General of Police/ Head of Police Force Office of the Director General of Police Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai-600 004 4.Union Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road New Delhi - 110069 Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus (a) calling for the records relating to Public Note No.SC/19/2025 of the Home (SC) Department dated 31.08.

2025 of the 2nd respondent, and quash the same insofar as it appoints the 3rd respondent as DGP (In-charge) of the State of Tamil Nadu, (b) consequently direct the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to complete, within a time to be fixed by this Honble Court, the process of selection and appointment of the Director General of Police/Head of Police Force of the State of Tamil Nadu strictly in accordance with law, and pending such appointment further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to entrust charge of DGP/HoPF, to any one among the first three senior-most eligible officers until a regular appointment is made in accordance with law and the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

For Petitioner:

M/s.M.Ravi Priya Ravi For Respondents:

Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader assisted by Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman, Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3 Mr.V.Chandrasekaran for respondent No.4

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the ad-hoc arrangement made by the respondent State till regular appointment to the post of Director General of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner also prays for direction to the official respondents to complete the process of selection and appointment of the Director General of Police within a time frame.

3. Learned State counsel has brought to the notice of this Court an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Henri Tiphangne v. Thiru N.Muruganandam, IAS, Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and another1. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below:

"1. The present contempt petition has been filed contending that the respondents have committed contempt by appointing a person as in-charge Director General of Police (D.G.P.).

2. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu states that the regular D.G.P. could not be appointed as one of the officers had initiated proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking inclusion of his name in the panel. The said original application was dismissed on 30.04.2025.

3. It is submitted that thereafter the said Officer moved this Court by way of an application, which was dismissed on 22.08.2025.

4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that immediately thereafter, a panel of officers was submitted to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) by hand on 29.08.2025.

5. We request the UPSC to consider the matter expeditiously.

6. Upon receipt of the recommendation from the UPSC, the respondent-State shall take steps forthwith to appoint a 1 Order dated 8.9.2025 in Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No.49640 of 2025

regular Director General of Police.

7. The contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, insisted that the ad-hoc arrangement, which has now been made, should be set aside.

5. Such a prayer made by the petitioner is completely baseless. The present arrangement is only till the regular appointment is made. Since the appointment of the Director General of Police is required to be made in compliance of the order which has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.09.2025, no order is required to be passed in this petition.

Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 11.09.2025 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No bbr

To:

1.The Chief Secretary to the Government Government of Tamilnadu Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009 2.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009 3.The Secretary Union Public Service Commission Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road New Delhi - 110069

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr 11.09.2025