Madras High Court
K.Syed Sulthan Ibrahim vs The Director General Of Police on 21 June, 2024
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024
and W.M.P.Nos.12949, 8031, 8033, 15147, 15149, 3855, 3860, 3874 and
3879 of 2024
In W.P.No.11855 of 2024 :-
K.Syed Sulthan Ibrahim .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Board,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Board,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
3. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.
by its Additional Chief Secretary,
Home (Police) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. .. Respondents
In W.P.No.7184 of 2024 :-
Venkatesh .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Government Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to the Government,
Ministry of Home Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024
Saint George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner Office Complex,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008.
3. Muthukrishnan.D
4. Duraisingh.C
5. Danasekaran.R
6. Iyyappan.M
7. Livinsingh Dhinakaran.S
8. Rahul.R
9. Kumar.M
10. Sathiyamoorthi.M
11. Mohanraj.R
12. Baskar.K
13. Sathishkumar.M
14. Sathishkumar.S
Service through
The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner Office Complex,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008. .. Respondents
In W.P.No.13950 of 2024 :-
R.Prabhakaran .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home (Pol.II) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/13
W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024
2. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner Office Complex,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
3. The Director General of Police and
Head of Police Force,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai - 4.
4. Muthukrishnan.D
5. Duraisingh.C
6. Danasekaran.R
7. Iyyappan.M
8. Livinsingh Dhinakaran.S
9. Rahul.R
10. Kumar.M
11. Sathiyamoorthi.M
12. Mohanraj.R
13. Baskar.K
14. Sathishkumar.M
15. Sathishkumar.S .. Respondents
In W.P.No.3584 of 2024 :-
K.Senthamizhselvi .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Government Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to the Government,
Ministry of Home Department,
Saint George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner Office Complex,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/13
W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024
3. Uma Suganthi.P
4. Kasturi Lakshmi.T
Service through
The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner Office Complex,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008. .. Respondents
In W.P.No.3594 of 2024 :-
K.Tamizhselvan .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Government Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to the Government,
Ministry of Home Department,
Saint George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner Office Complex,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008.
3. Muthukrishnan.D
4. Duraisingh.C
5. Danasekaran.R
6. Iyyappan.M
7. Livinsingh Dhinakaran.S
8. Rahul.R
9. Kumar.M
10. Sathiyamoorthi.M
11. Mohanraj.R
12. Baskar.K
13. Sathishkumar.M
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/13
W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024
14. Sathishkumar.S
Service through
The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner Office Complex,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008. .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.11855 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent
made in Na.Ka.No.R4/132/0986/2024, dated 18.03.2024, to quash the same
and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to arrive the Selection List
by preparing the list of candidates under General Turn (GT) at the first
instance in consideration of meritorious candidates irrespective of
community followed by communal vacancies in accordance with the ratio
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.
Shobana reported in 2021 (4) SCC 686, thereby to consider the claim of the
petitioner for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under category
reserved for BC(M).
Prayer in W.P.No.7184 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus after calling for records pertaining to the order
RC.No.R2/1616/TNUSRB/2023, dated 29.01.2024 issued by the 2nd
respondent, quash the same as unconstitutional, only to the extent of
including respondents no.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 in the SC reservation
category instead of General merit category (GT) and only allocating 13 seats
instead of 14 seat to the SC reservation category and thereby not selecting
the petitioner under the SC reservation category and consequently direct the
2nd respondent to select the petitioner under the SC reservation category.
Prayer in W.P.No.13950 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus after calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/13
W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024
with the impugned Selection List published in
Rc.No.R2/1616/TNUSRB/2023, dated 29.01.2024, quash the same as
unconstitutional, only to the extent of including the respondents 9 to 14 in
the SC Reservation category instead of General merit category (GT) and
only allocating 13 seats instead of 14 seats to the SC reservation category
and thereby not selecting the petitioner under the SC reservation category
and consequently direct the respondents to select the petitioner under the SC
reservation category by strictly following the Rule of reservation under 200
points roster.
Prayer in W.P.No.3584 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus after calling for the records pertaining to the order
RC.No.R2/1616/TNUSRB/2023, dated 29.01.2024 issued by the 2nd
respondent, quash the same as unconstitutional, only to the extent it has
included the 4th respondent in the SC reservation category instead of
General category (GT) and thereby not selecting the petitioner under the SC
reservation category and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to select
the petitioner under the SC reservation category.
Prayer in W.P.No.3594 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus after calling for the records pertaining to the order
RC.No.R2/1616/TNUSRB/2023, dated 29.01.2024 issued by the 2nd
respondent, quash the same as unconstitutional, only to the extent of
including respondents no.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 in the SC reservation
category instead of General merit category (GT) and only allocating 13 seats
instead of 14 seat to the SC reservation category and thereby not selecting
the petitioner under the SC reservation category and consequently direct the
2nd respondent to select the petitioner under the SC reservation category.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
(in W.P.No.11855 of 2024)
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Meenakshi
(in W.P.Nos.7184, 3584
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/13
W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024
and 3594 of 2024)
For Petitioner : Mr.Muthappan
(in W.P.No.13950 of 2024)
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash,
(in all W.Ps) Government Advocate for R1
: Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General - VII
Asst. by Mrs.Sowmi Dattan,
Standing Counsel for R2
COMMON ORDER
When these matters were taken up for hearing on 06.06.2024, this Court recorded the submissions made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General for the second respondent and passed the following order :-
" Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that prima facie the respondents are also of the view that some errors have crept in while implementing the reservation and that they are willing to redo the selection list and he further submitted that if such an observation is made and the writ petition is kept pending they will rectify the mistake and they will redo the list and place it before this Court so that final orders could be passed.
2. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.11855 of 2024, by pointing out to the list of selected candidates in respect of BC Muslim quota had pointed out two names, namely, Shaffe.M. and Ameer.S, and further submitted that they have scored 82.5 and 81 marks respectively. According to him when the respondents have arrived the cut off mark as 80.75 in respect of open general category these two candidates could not have been accommodated as against the BC Muslim vacancy. If these two candidates are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/13 W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024 accommodated in the general list the petitioner who is next in turn would get an opportunity.
3. Mr.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.13950 of 2024 pointed out to the communication of the respondent dated 26.09.2023 and submitted that the respondents have shortlisted the candidates and called for interview and physical test in the ratio of 1:5. At that time itself irrespective of the marks, if the candidates are of a particular reserved category, they have counted them as against their reservation category and accordingly shortlisted and invited the candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:5. According to him, if the principles laid down in the Shobana's case has been followed, at that stage itself several of the open category candidates who are called for interview could not have made it and several other reserved candidates who have not at all called for interview would have made it for the interview as well as for the physical verification test. Therefore, according to him if at all the respondents are carrying out the exercise of redoing the list, they have to redo from the stage of 26.09.2023 itself and if any candidates are left over they should be called for supplementary interview/ physical verification test and only thereafter final list have to be reworked.
4. The respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners will be considered on its own merits. But, however in the interregnum the respondents themselves are voluntarily agreeing to go by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs K.Shobana reported in 2021 (4) SCC 686 and also duly following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5105 of 2024 etc., and come up with the revised list. It is made clear that it would be open for the respondents to consider the submissions made by both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and to take a decision in accordance with law. It is also made clear that irrespective of their decision, this Court would take into consideration the entire aspect of the matter while deciding the matter finally. It wold be open for the respondents to go for either of the course suggested by Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/13 W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024 counsel or Mr.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel and it is for them to consider the principles to be followed at the time of short listing itself as also at the time of drawing up the final list and come to a conclusion for themselves. Let the exercise shall be carried out by the respondents themselves and be placed before this Court on 21.06.2024.
5. Post the matter on 21.06.2024. "
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, a report is filed by the first respondent, in which, in paragraph No.5, they have recognized the mistake and have undertaken to redo the exercise from the stage as of 26.09.2023 itself i.e., from the stage of short-listing the candidates for physical measurement test, endurance test, physical efficiency test followed by viva-voice. Therefore, the respondents are going to redo the whole exercise after the stage of the written test. The said paragraph No.5 is extracted hereunder :-
" 5. It is submitted that the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in para 4 of the order will be complied with. The Board has decided to redo the Joint Recruitment 2023 from the stage of 26.09.2023 itself which includes Physical Measurement Test, Endurance Test and Physical Efficiency Test followed by Viva voce for those candidates who stands eligible as per the Supreme Court order in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs K.Shobana reported in 2021 (4) SCC 686. In this new process and the revised selection will commence from the month of July and will be completed within three months."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/13 W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024
3. It is also clarified by the learned Additional Advocate General for the second respondent that they will redo the exercise of short-listing the candidates for physical measurement test, endurance test, physical efficiency test, viva-voice etc. In the said list, if any of the new candidates are called, they will alone be called for physical measurement tests, endurance tests, physical efficiency tests etc., and in respect of the candidates who have already undergone the tests, the said tests will not be undertaken. However, their measurements and marks will be taken as such and a new list will be prepared in accordance with law. He also submits that due care will be undertaken to meticulously follow the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Saurav Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.1 and State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.Shobana2 and the revised select list will be published in accordance with law. It is also represented on behalf of the respondents that the entire exercise will be conducted within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
1 (2021) 4 SCC 542 2 (2021) 4 SCC 686 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/13 W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024
4. In view thereof, the grievances of all the writ petitioners, in all these Writ Petitions, shall stand redressed. It goes without saying that if, on the publication of the revised list or even short-listing of the list or even in the physical endurance test, any other person has any other grievance, the same can be agitated afresh.
5. Recording the above, all these Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.06.2024 Neutral Citation : yes/no grs To
1. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Board, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Board, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/13 W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024
4. The Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Home Department, Saint George Fort, Chennai.
5. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner Office Complex, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
6. The Director General of Police and Head of Police Force, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/13 W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs W.P.Nos.11855, 7184, 13950, 3584 and 3594 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.12949, 8031, 8033, 15147, 15149, 3855, 3860, 3874 and 3879 of 2024 21.06.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/13