Madras High Court
M.Karuppasamy vs The Director General Of Police on 3 January, 2019
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.01.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
W.P.(MD)No.25132 of 2018
M.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu Police Department,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Armed Reserve),
O/o the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Kilpauk, Chennai.
... Respondents
PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of
India praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the first
respondent to fix the petitioner's seniority on par with his batch
mates recruited for the year 2006-2007 based on his representation
dated 05.01.2018 and in the light of the proceedings passed by the
first respondent in C.No.3362/Rect/1(2)/2016, dated 11.11.2016
within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gurunathan
for G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan
Additional Government Pleader
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
The petitioner was selected as Grade-II Police Constable in the selection process for the year 2006-2007. However, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the petitioner has involved in a criminal case and was acquitted only on benefit of doubt. Subsequently, in the year 2010, this Court allowed Crl.R.C.No.363 of 2010 filed by the petitioner converting the acquittal into one of honourable acquittal.
2.Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.16858 of 2012 before this Court, seeking appointment. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court on 26.03.2013. In compliance with the order of this Court, the petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 19.09.2015. Claiming that the petitioner is entitled to seniority along with his batch mates recruited in the year 2006-2007 (actual appointment was made on 01.03.2008), the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus.
3.I have heard Mr.Gurunathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the delay in appointment cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It was because of the wrong rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by the appointing authority, earlier.
5.He would also draw my attention to the proceedings of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu in C.No.3362/Rect 1 (2)/2016 dated 11.11.2016, wherein considering the similar case, the Director General of Police directed the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District to fix the seniority of one M.Valai Selvan, who involved in a criminal case, with effect from 01.03.2018 as per Rule 24(d) of TNSPSS Rules. In the said order itself the Director General of Police has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of State of Haryana and other vs. Dinesh Kumar, which reads thus:-
“31.In the result, the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.1840 of 2007 is dismissed, while the Civil Appeal arising out SLP © No.14939 of 2007 is allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 22.09.2005, impugned in the said appeal, is set aside and the concerned respondents are directed to take steps to issue appointment letters to the appellants in the said appeals subject to fulfilment of other conditions by them. It is also made clear that the appellants http://www.judis.nic.in 4 R.SUBRAMANIAN.J, ta will be deemed to have been appointed as Constable-Divers with effect from the date, persons lower in merit to them were appointed. However, while they will be entitled to the notional benefits of such continuous appointment, they will be entitled to salary only from the date of this judgment on the basis of such notional benefits.”
6.In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the petitioner with effect from 01.03.2008, i.e., the date on which the other candidates selected in the same batch were appointed. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the said period.
No costs.
03.01.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ta
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu Police Department,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Armed Reserve), O/o the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kilpauk, Chennai.
W.P.(MD).No.25132 of 2018 http://www.judis.nic.in