Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government, Home ... vs S. Manoharan And The Registrar, Tamil ... on 1 November, 2007
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao, S.R. Singharavelu
ORDER Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions, aggrieved against the common order passed by the Tribunal dated 10.11.1998, wherein the applicants/respondents working as Head Constables and their next avenue for promotion as Sub-Inspectors of Police have filed the above said O.As. contending that they were enlisted as Grade II PC on 1.10.1975 and promoted as Grade I PC on 1.7.1978 and further promoted as HC on 7.3.1986. According to Rule 3(d) of the Special Rules for TNPSS Rules, a Head Constable who satisfies the qualifications prescribed in the said Rule is eligible for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police by promotion. A Range Promotion Board is conducted for selection of Head Constables by conducting written test viva-voce and drill test. The applicants are fully qualified to participate in the range promotion board conducted for the preparation of "C" list from 1990 onwards. As there was no Range Promotion Board from 1980, they could not be considered for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.
2. The Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 937, Home (Pols. 3) department dated 21.7.1998, wherein it has been stated that those who have completed 25 years of service in the department with 10 years of service as HC will be promoted as Special Sub-Inspectors of Police. However, exemption has been given only to directly recruited Grade I PC numbering about 469, who are enlisted in the year 1974 and now working as HC on the ground that even though they have completed 10 years of service as HC, they did not complete 25 years of total service in the department, but they are seniors in service. If the G.O. is implemented, the applicants/respondents will be overlooked for consideration to the post of Special Sub-Inspectors. The intention of the scheme is to extend benefit to those who are suffering on account of stagnation of promotional avenue as per their seniority. So from the above contention of the applicants, that those who have holding the post of Head Constable for 10 years, but they are not having 25 years of total service, their case could be considered for promotion to the post of Special Sub-Inspectors. On the other hand those who are having 25 years of service will be promoted. It is not in dispute that the feeder category for promotion to the post of Special Sub-Inspectors is one and the same.
3. The Tribunal on consideration of the contentions of the applicants/respondents that the description of 25 years of total service is discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has set aside that portion of the Government Order. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the present writ petitions are filed by the Government.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side.
5. Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Government Pleader (W), appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has tailed to see that the instructions contained in G.O.Ms. No. 937 dated 21.7.1998 and the consequential letter dated 8.10.1998 are all policy decision of the Government for granting a special concession, to a class of Police Constabulary who have rendered 25 years of total service subject to certain other conditions of eligibility. It is further submitted that the Tribunal should have seen that the intention of the Government in the Government order is to lift the Head Constables/Havildars whose promotion as regular, Sub-Inspector of Police is stagnated for one reason or other, by granting temporary relief by upgrading them as Special Sub-Inspectors of Police till they get promotion as Sub-inspectors of Police in the regular line. Therefore, in order to fix a norm for granting the above relief, a total service of 25 years with 10 years in the rank of Head Constable/Havildar, has been stipulated for moving the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police. As per the norms fixed in the year 1998 only those Head Constables/Havildars who have entered into the service prior to the first day of June 1973 would have completed total service of 25 years. Whereas 469 Head Constables who were recruited directly as Grade I Constables in the year 1974 would not satisfy the 25 years of total service condition. Even though they are seniors in the rank of Head Constables to those Head Constables who had initially recruited as Head Constable to those Head Constables who were initially recruited as Grade-II Police Constables in the year 1973 or before,
6. It is further submitted that in order to rectify this anomaious situation exemption was granted to those Head Constables who were recruited as Grade I Constables during 1974 from satisfying 25 years of total service condition. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the applicants in implementing the said the Government Order.
7. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that it is a scheme framed for the benefit of the Police Constables whose promotion as regular Sub-Inspector of Police is stagnated for one reason or other, by granting a temporary relief by upgrading them as Special Sub-Inspectors of Police till they get their regular promotion as, Sub-Inspectors of Police in the regular line and that the service rendered as Special Sub-Inspectors have not baring or it cannot be counted for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the regular line. It is mentioned in more than one occasion that this is nothing but a monetary benefit for the stagnated Head Constables those who are working for the last 10 years and having 25 years of total service. Therefore, when the applicants instead of approaching the Tribunal they should have approached the Government seeking for exemption for the above said service conditions as it was mentioned in the said Government Order. When the services rendered by the Head Constables are not considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector in the regular line and it is only with a view to give monetary benefit for those who have stagnated in the post of Head Constables for lack of promotional avenue, it cannot be held that prejudice would be caused to the applicants those who are not having 25 years of service. Moreover the Tribunal after considering the submissions of the applicants without considering the object and reasons of the above said scheme straight away struck down the above two conditions imposed in the Government Order.
8. Therefore, we are not inclined to agree with the finding of the Tribunal as above discussed. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed.