Madras High Court
J.Janorious Fausta vs P.K.Murugan on 22 December, 2023
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.1448 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 03.08.2023
Pronounced on : 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.1448 of 2018
1. J.Janorious Fausta
2. M.Uma Devi
3. K.Radha
4. M.Suresh Kumar
5. P.K.Ajitha ... Appellants
Vs.
1. P.K.Murugan
2. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
3. The Director General of Police
Chennai – 600 004.
4. The Deputy Inspector of Police
Technical Services,
Chennai – 600 004.
5. C.Anand Kumar
1/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1448 of 2018
6. P.Krishnaswamy
7. S.Maheswaran
8. S.Sekar
9. K.Gokulakannan
10. R.Viyasekaran
11. S.Ravikumar
12. H.Arunkumar
13. M.Uma Maheswari
14. P.Hemalatha
15. N.Jagadesan
16. R.Raja
17. R.Satyanarayanan
18. Saravanan
19. B.Raju
20. B.Vivekanandan
21. R.Saratha
22. N.Naresh Kumar
23. U.Parthasarathy
24. S.Parimala Devi
25. D.Rajesh
26. M.Bhuvaneswaran
27. V.Akila
28. M.Devendiran
29. K.M.Saravanan
30. K.Srinivasan
31. A.Sundar
32. K.Madhan Mohan
33. A.Sundaravadivelu
34. P.Manjula
35. M.K.Shanthi
36. N.Chitra .. Respondents
(R11 Died - dropped from array of parties vide
order of court, dated 02.08.2022 made in
Rev.A.No.8 of 2020 and Rev.A.No.211 of 2021)
2/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1448 of 2018
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 19.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7146 of
2010.
For Appellants : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan
for R1 and R20
Mr.S.Silambanan, AAG
assisted by Mr.M.Murali, GA
and Mr.M.Babu Barveez, GA
for R2 to R4
Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior
Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan for R8 and
R16
Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior
Counsel
for Mr.R.Abdur Rahman
for R9, R17 to R19 and R22 to R24
Mr.K.Govi Ganesan for R33
No appearance for R27 and R28
Notice served - No Appearance
for R5 to R7, R10, R12, R14, R15,
R21, R25 and R36
R13 - Not ready in Notice
3/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1448 of 2018
JUDGMENT
R.SURESH KUMAR, J This Intra Court Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the writ court, dated 19.01.2018 made in W.P.No.7146 of 2010.
2. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows :
(i) that the first respondent P.K.Murugan had filed the said writ petition seeking a relief of certiorarified mandamus, call for and quash the proceedings issued by the official respondents, dated 13.02.2007, i.e., the seniority list interse fixed among the candidates who had been selected and recruited as Sub-Inspector (Technical) in Tamil Nadu Police Telecommunication Branch as well as the rejection order passed by the official respondents on 10.03.2010 rejecting the request of the said P.K.Murugan and others with regard to the refixation of seniority.
(ii) The said writ petitioner Murugan and other respondents, except 4/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 the official respondents herein as well as the appellants were all selected and appointed as Sub-Inspector (Technical) in the year 2001. Totally 154 such Sub-Inspector (Technical) were recruited through the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board.
(iii) This was first time such recruitment had been made specifically and specially for Sub-Inspector (Technical).
(iv) This post of Sub-Inspector (Technical) and Inspector (Technical) is a specialised post, which are governed by an adhoc rules called Adhoc Rules relating to the post of Technical category of the Police Telecommunication Branch in Tamil Nadu (in short "the Adhoc Rules").
(v) In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 8 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 and Sections 9 and 11 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 r/w proviso to Article 309 and 313 of the Constitution of India, the Tamil Nadu Government made the said Adhoc Rules.5/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018
(vi) Under the Adhoc Rules, the Constitution, appointment, appointing authority, qualification, probation, administrative control, technical control, application of other rules and training in respect of these category of police people have been dealt with.
(vii) It is to be noted that, in the said Adhoc Rules, how the seniority interse among the Sub-Inspector (Technical) or Inspector (Technical) to be fixed has not been spelt out.
(viii) In this context, it is further to be noted that, at the top of this Adhoc Rules, it has been specifically mentioned that, the special rules applicable to the holders of the permanent post in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service shall apply to the holders of the posts of Inspector (Technical) and Sub-Inspector (Technical) in the Police Telecommunication Branch subject to the modification specified in the following rules.
(ix) It means that, apart from what has been provided under the 6/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 Adhoc Rules, for any other issue, which has not been dealt with in the Adhoc Rules, the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (in short "the Special Rules”) shall apply.
(x) Insofar as the present issue raised in this lis is concerned, there has been no quarrel that, as per the procedure that has been provided under the Adhoc Rules, the selection was made and these people were selected and recruited as Sub-Inspector (Technical) for the year 1999-2000 in the year 2001. After their appointment, they had to undergo a training as per Rule 10 and in fact such a training also had been completed by them for six months period and thereafter they had been pressed into service in the Police Telecommunication Branch at various places in the State of Tamil Nadu.
(xi) However, their seniority had been first time fixed and the C-List was issued only in the year 2007, i.e., dated 13.02.2007. On perusal of the said interse seniority list of these Sub-Inspector (Technical), some of them found that, even though they secured higher marks in the examination after training, they had been placed bottom of the seniority and on what basis, 7/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 such a seniority had been fixed interse among the Sub-Inspector (Technical) since was not known, the first respondent / writ petitioner had sent a representation to the Additional Director General of Police, Administration, Chennai on 21.10.2009. Similar representations also had been sent by various colleagues of him seeking to review the interse seniority released by them dated 13.02.2007.
(xii) For the said representation-cum-request made by these people to revise the seniority, the office of the Director General of Police, has rejected their plea by its communication, dated 10.03.2010 with the following remarks :
"2. They are hereby informed that the proposal sent to the Government for fixation of seniority by taking the aggregate marks obtained in law (Module-I) as well as technical subjects (Module- II) in future recruitment had already been accepted in principal by the Government and necessary amendment proposal has also been sent to Government for incorporation of the mode of seniority as mentioned above, to the Adhoc Rules 8/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 framed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.53, Home (Pol.9) Department, dated 18.01.1999.
(ii) As per the Adhoc Rules framed in the said G.O., the Special Rules applicable to the holders of the permanent posts of TNPSS shall apply to the temporary posts in the respective categories of the Technical posts of the PTB. As per Rule 25(a) of Special Rules for TNPSS, the seniority of directly recruited SIs shall be fixed based on the marks obtained by them in the final exam conducted by the PTC. As such, the marks obtained in Module-I on law subjects could not be totally ignored for the purpose of fixing seniority.
3. In view of the position explained above, the request of the under mentioned petitioners for revision of their seniority in the rank of S.I (Technical) according to the marks obtained in the exam conducted on technical subjects by PTB alone could not be accepted to."
(xiii) Aggrieved over the seniority list, dated 13.02.2007 as well as the rejection order, dated 10.03.2010, the first respondent P.K.Murugan filed the said writ petition in W.P.No.7146 of 2010 for the prayer sought for therein.
9/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018
(xiv) During the pendency of the said writ petition, several colleagues of him, i.e., the writ petitioner got impleaded in the said writ petition as party respondents. The said writ petition was heard and decided by the learned Judge, by impugned order, dated 19.01.2018, where the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner was allowed, such of his case in fact was supported by some of the respondents in the writ petition who got subsequently impleaded but some of the respondents in the writ petition who had subsequently been impleaded opposed the said prayer sought for by the writ petitioner. Therefore by virtue of the order impugned passed by the learned Judge, some of those people got affected and hence, five of them joined together and filed the present writ appeal. That is how this Writ Appeal has come up.
3. Before delve into the aspect of whether the order passed by the learned single Judge is to be sustained or not, certain basic facts and the rule position have to be first gone into.
10/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018
4. As stated supra the Adhoc Rules has dealt with the subjects mentioned above like appointment, qualification, probation etc., One of the subject dealt with by the Adhoc Rule is training, which is the relevant rule for the present issue or controversy. Rule 10 of the Adhoc Rules therefore is extracted hereunder :
"10. Training – (a) Every person appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector (Technical) shall undergo a training for a period of three months in the Police Training College. The training programme shall include the following :
INDOOR -
(i) Organisational structure of Police Force and badges of rank.
(ii Rudiments of Law, Indian Penal Code 1860 (Central Act XLV of 1860); Criminal Procedure 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Central Act 1 of 1872) and Minor Acts.
(iii) Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964
(iv) Introduction of computer MIS and computer based message transmission system.
(v) Study of wireless communication.
11/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 OUTDOOR -
(i) Physical training exercise, Yoga, Meditation.
(ii) Drill without arms, Sections 17to 61 of Drill and Training Manual of Tamil Nadu Police.
(iii) Games and athletics.
On completion of training, a suitable test shall be conducted and the minimum marks for a pass shall be a 40 per cent.
b) Every person appointed to the post of Sub-
Inspector (Technical) shall also undergo three months Institutional Training at Police Telecommunication Branch, Technical Training School. They shall be trained in -
(i) Functioning of Telecommunication equipments used in Police Organisation, namely, very High Frequency Micro Wave, Time, Divisional Multi Access Ultra High Frequency and computer based message Transmission System.
(ii) Operation of High Frequency link.
(iii) Erection, installation and commissioning of various telecommunication equipments.
(iv) Maintenance of equipments of various types and other gadgets namely, very High Frequency, Microwave Time Divisional Multi Access, 12/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 Exchange and Message Transmission System.
(v) Installation and commissioning of Repeater Stations Central Rooms and Workshops.
(vi) Store and workshop management.
(viii) Research and Development – A suitable test shall be conducted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Technical Service) duly assisted by the Director, Police Telecommunication Branch at the end of the training and the minimum marks for a pass in the test shall be 50 per cent."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. After these Sub-Inspectors (Technical) were selected, recruited and appointed, they have to undergo training under Rule 10 of the Adhoc Rules. First they have to undergo a training under Rule 10(a) for a period of 3 months in the Police Training College, where there was Indoor training as well as Outdoor training and in the Indoor training, organisational structure of police force and badges of rank, Rudiments of Law, Indian Penal Code 1860, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Minor Act, Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964, Introduction of computer MIS and computer based message transmission system, Study of wireless communication are to be learnt, wherein training 13/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 to be given. In Outdoor training, some physical training, exercise, yoga, meditation, drill without arms, Games and athletics also to be taught and trained. On completion of the training, a suitable test shall be conducted and the minimum mark for pass shall be 40 per cent. This is the training to be undergone by these recruits under Rule 10(a).
6. Thereafter the next training is under Rule 10(b), where similarly three months institutional training to be undergone at Police Telecommunication Branch, Technical Training Centre, where the functioning of Telecommunication equipments used in police organisation, operation of High Frequency link, Erection, installation and commissioning of various telecommunication equipments, Maintenance of equipments of various types and other gadgets, Installation and commissioning of Repeater Stations, Store and workshop management, Research and Development etc., are the subject or area, which would be taught to them and they have to undergo the training in those areas. A suitable test also herein shall be conducted at the Police Telecommunication Branch at the end of the training and the minimum marks for a pass in the test shall be 50 per cent.
7. Therefore it become crystal clear that, under Rule 10, there is two 14/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 part, i.e., Rule 10(a) and Rule 10(b). Under Rule 10(a), a training shall be undergone by these Sub-Inspector (Technical) for a period of three months, at the end of the three months, there would be a examination, where a minimum 40 per cent should be taken to declare pass. Then under Rule 10(b), yet another training for three months to be undergone by these Sub- Inspector (Technical) on technical aspects, i.e., Telecommunication equipments etc., and after completion of this training also, an examination would be conducted, where minimum 50 per cent marks to be taken to get declared pass. Therefore both the training under Rule 10(a) as well as Rule 10(b) of the Adhoc Rules is the must and every one has undergone the said training in two parts and have completed it successfully.
8. Now the controversy that revolve is, while the interse seniority list was published by the official respondents on 13.02.2007 as we stated above, some of them found their place pushed back even though they secured higher marks in their training and they were at loss to understand to know that on what basis such seniority list has been prepared. Therefore, when they made a request to the official respondents to revisit and redo or recast 15/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 their seniority, that was rejected by stating that, the marks obtained by the candidate in the Rule 10(a) training cannot be ignored. That means, the seniority list has been prepared based on the marks obtained by them in the first training, i.e., Rule 10(a) training alone.
9. Because of this answer given by the official respondents, the writ petitioner got annoyed, because according to him, the marks obtained by the candidates in the 10(b) training, i.e., Technical training should be the sole basis for fixing the interse seniority. Only in that footing, he had approached this Court, filed the writ petition.
10. During the pendency of this writ petition, his cause was supported by his colleagues who all supported the case of the writ petitioner stating that, interse seniority should be fixed only on the basis of the marks obtained in technical examination, i.e., Rule 10(b) examination.
11. Some of the colleagues who also joined by way of impleadment in 16/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 the writ petition, opposed the said move of the writ petitioner group and they supported the action taken by the official respondents in fixing the seniority based on the marks they obtained in the Rule 10(a) training / test.
12. However ultimately the learned Judge has found that, it is not a regular police force as no law and order work will be given to them, like the regular Sub-Inspector of Police like L&O and Crime Department and these people are only technical people would be there in the Police Telecommunication Branch and throughout their career, this post is not interchangeable with the regular L&O and Crime Branch Department.
13. When that being so, the focus must be on the technical knowledge and the training they earned and acquired and therefore based on their performance in the technical examination, i.e., Rule 10(b) training examination or test alone, the seniority should have been fixed. That was the view taken by the learned Judge in the writ petition and ultimately he allowed the writ petition by giving the following direction :
"21. For all the aforementioned reasons, the 17/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 impugned seniority list dated 13.02.2007 prepared by the third respondent and also the rejection order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the second respondent are quashed. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to re-cast the petitioner's seniority and the similarly placed persons on the basis of the marks obtained by the Sub-Inspectors (Technical) in the technical training as provided for under Rule 10(b) of the ad hoc rules by harmonious reading of Rule 25(a) of the Special Rules with the ad hoc rules on the basis of underlying principle of purposive interpretation in the larger interest of the Police Department.
Such exercise shall be completed by the Department within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction and observation, this writ petition stands allowed. Costs made easy. Connected M.P. No.1 of 2013 is closed."
14. Because of the said order passed by the writ Court, five people who are the appellants herein belongs to Rule 10(a) group, as they support the marks obtained only in the 10(a) examination as a criterion or basis for the purpose of interse seniority, has filed this Writ Appeal.
15. All other private respondents in this appeal, except the official 18/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 respondents, belongs to Rule 10(b) group as they support that the interse seniority among themselves to be fixed by the official respondents only based on the marks they obtained in the Rule 10(b) examination, i.e., technical examination.
16. In fact, this writ appeal came to be decided finally by the first Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 05.12.2019, where the Division Bench in fact had allowed the appeal and the Judgment, dated 19.01.2018, that is the impugned order was set aside and the seniority as circulated on 13.02.2007 insofar as the appellant viz-a-viz contesting respondents are concerned it was upheld and it was directed to maintain accordingly.
17. However, subsequently, a Review Application No.8 of 2020 was filed by one B.Vivekanandhan who belongs to Rule 10(b) group and who even though was a party in the writ appeal had not been served notice and without serving notice to him, since the First Bench decided the matter by allowing the writ appeal, by Judgment, dated 05.12.2019, challenging the 19/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 same, the said Review Application No.8 of 2020 was filed, where another Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 01.03.2023 passed the following order :
"The sole ground, on which, review is sought for is that the review applicant was not served notice in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Appeal came to be allowed without hearing him. While entertaining the review, a Division Bench had passed the following the order on 05.01.2022:-
“The review applications have been filed to challenge the judgment dated 05.12.2019 passed in W.A.No.1448 of 2018 on the ground that without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents in the writ appeal, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
2.A perusal of the judgment shows representation of few respondents. But to ascertain whether notices were issued and served on all the respondents in the writ appeal, the Registry is directed to place the records of the writ appeal. The Registry is further directed to prepare a note as to whether notice was issued on respondents and they were served before the date of hearing of the 20/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 appeal.
3.Let these review applications be listed on 02.02.2022 for compliance of the direction given above.”
2.The Registry has filed a report pursuant to the said order, which shows that the complaint of the applicant in Review Application No.8 of 2020 is correct and no notice was served on him in the Writ Appeal, when the Writ Appeal came to be disposed of by the Division Bench. Once it is conceded that notice was not served on one of the respondents, the order, which reverses the order of the Writ Court has to be necessarily re-called.
3.The next question that would arise is whether the order could be re-called only in respect of the petitioner or in its entirety.
Since it is a matter concerning seniority of a bunch of persons, who were appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Technical) in the Police force in the same recruitment, recalling the order in respect of one person alone would not be a correct resolution. Proviso to Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code envisages such situation and empowers the Court to re-call the entire decree. A Writ Appeal being an appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, Proviso to Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. Hence, exercising the power under Proviso to Rule 13 of Order 9, we re-call the entire judgment made in the Writ Appeal 21/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 No. 1448 of 2018 dated 05.12.2019.
4.In view of the above, this Review Application stands allowed."
18. That is how this writ appeal has been posted before us for hearing and disposal.
19. We have heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel, Mr.V.Radhakrishnan and Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the private contesting respondents and Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Murali and Mr.M.Babu Barveez, learned Government Advocates appearing for the official respondents.
20. Though the controversy that has arisen in this lis appears to be a complicated one, but strictly speaking it is in a very narrow compass.
21. The only question that has arisen for consideration is, whether the marks obtained by the selectees / appointees as Sub-Inspector (Technical) in 22/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 the Police Telecommunication Branch in Tamil Nadu of the year 1999-2000 selected in the year 2001, in the test conducted by the Police Training College under Rule 10(a) of the Adhoc Rules shall be the sole basis for fixing their interse seniority or on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the test conducted by the Police Telecommunication Branch under Rule 10(b) of the said Adhoc Rules such seniority can be fixed?
22. In order to get answer to the said question, though the learned Judge has taken the tool of purposive interpretation, has ultimately held that, since the Rule 10(b) test or examination is a technical test or examination, therefore that alone shall be given primacy and focus must have been given only on such performance in the technical examination. Therefore based on the marks obtained by them alone the seniority should be fixed on them.
23. In this context, it is to be noted that, in the Adhoc Rules, how the seniority to be fixed has not been spelt out. However, at the very beginning or head of the Adhoc Rules, it has been specifically stated as follows : 23/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 "The special rules applicable to the holders of permanent posts in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service shall apply to the holders of the posts of Inspector (Technical) and Sub-
Inspector (Technical) in the Police
Telecommunication Branch subject to the
modification specified in the following rules."
24. Therefore the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service would mutatis mutandis be made applicable to the service conditions or service personnel governed under this Adhoc Rules.
25. In this context, the position of seniority as to how to be fixed among various categories have been dealt with under Rule 25 of the Special Rules. For the purpose of the present lis, the relevant portion of Rule 25 is extracted hereunder :
"25. Seniority
(a) The seniority of a person in any class or category of the service shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list 24/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 of approved candidates drawn up by the appointing authority, subject to the rule of reservation where it applies. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his seniority, unless he has been appointed temporarily under sub rule (d) of Rule 10 or sub rule (b) of Rule 15, as the case may be.
Provided that in the case of Sub Inspectors (recruited direct) (Category 2 of Class I) the seniority shall be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the final examination in the Police Training College, Chennai."
26. Proviso to Rule 25 of Special Rules is important which provides that, in the case of Sub-Inspector (recruited direct) (Category 2 of Class I), the seniority shall be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the final examination in the Police Training College, Chennai.
27. Taking clue from this proviso to Rule 25 of the Special Rules, the official respondents has decided that, the test conducted by the Police Training College under Rule 10(a) of the Adhoc Rules is the test or final 25/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 examination to be taken up for consideration to fix the interse seniority. That is the reason why based on the Rule 10(a) on the mark or performances of the candidates, it seems that, the interse seniority has been fixed.
28. However, from the letter issued by the office of the Director General of Police, dated 10.03.2010, which was impugned before the writ court, it has not been made clear except to state that as per Rule 25(a) of Special Rules for TNPSS, the seniority of directly recruited Sub-Inspector shall be fixed based on the marks obtained by them in the final examination conducted by the PTC (that means Police Training College). As such the marks obtained in Module I on law subjects could not be totally ignored for the purpose of fixing seniority.
29. If we take the direct meaning of the afore stated statement given by the DGP in his letter dated 10.03.2010, it conveys the meaning that the marks secured by the candidates under Rule 10(a) cannot be ignored, that means that can also be taken into account or added. But it has not conveyed the meaning that they have taken only the marks secured by the candidates 26/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 under Rule 10(a) test alone.
30. Be that as it may, the learned Judge, however, having understood this position, has categorically stated that, the petitioner came to know that the seniority was fixed on the basis of the marks obtained by the Sub- Inspectors (Technical) in terms of Rule 10(a) of the Adhoc Rules. This has been recorded by the learned Judge in para 1.4 of the impugned Order.
31. Arguments also were advanced by both sides that the impugned seniority list was prepared by the official respondents only based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the Rule 10(a) examination and not under Rule 10(b) examination, which means the marks obtained by the candidates under Rule 10(b) examination has never been taken into account.
32. This was the position which was accepted by the Government also, that is the official respondents, as has been stated by the learned Additional Advocate General.
27/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018
33. In this context, if we look at the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents before the writ court, it has been stated as follows “wherein the petitioner's name was placed in Sl.No.128 for having obtained the marks of 459 out of 600 marks in Police Training College, Chennai on law subjects. The seniority was fixed in 2007 based on Government Letter No.1169, Home Department, dated 06.12.2006.” “His seniority should be determined on the basis of the marks obtained at the Police Training College.”
34. It has further been stated in the counter that, as per the Government Letter No.1169 the fixation of seniority of Sub-Inspector (Technical) was made based on the marks obtained in the final examination conducted at Police Training College on the conclusion of the basic training which has been accepted by the Government.
35. It has further been stated that, as per the Government Order No.1169, the DIG, Technical Services has to fix the seniority in respect of the directly recruited Sub-Inspector (Technical) based on the marks obtained 28/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 by them in the final examination conducted at the Police Training College on the conclusion of the basic training.
36. Therefore in several places in the counter affidavit, the very same stand has been taken by the official respondents, which shows that, the official respondents had taken only the marks secured by the candidates in the final examination, that means the test under Rule 10(a) of the Adhoc Rules and accordingly, the interse seniority has been fixed. Therefore, the marks secured by them in the technical examination, that is the test under Rule 10(b) of the Adhoc Rules has never been taken into consideration.
37. Here it is the stand of the official respondents that, the word "final examination in the Police Training College", occurred in proviso to Rule 25 of the Special Rules means, the examination conducted at the Police Training College, that means, the examination under Rule 10(a). This interpretation sought to be given by the official respondents may not be justifiable, because, the Special Rules has been given effect to from 1955, whereas the Adhoc Rules has come in only in the year 1999 by issuance of 29/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 G.O.No.53, Home Department. Therefore in the Special Rules, it cannot be expected that, the provision should be made to demarcate which of the two examinations to be conducted would be called as s final examination, because, the concept of two examinations for Sub-Inspectors (Technical) is a new concept which has been introduced only in the Adhoc Rules in the year 1999.
38. Therefore the word "final examination", occurred in proviso to Rule 25 of the Special Rules must denotes both the examinations that has been mentioned in Rule 10, i.e., the examination under Rule 10(a) as well as examination under Rule 10(b).
39. This position in fact has been realised by the very official respondents as they already wrote to the Government that, 70 per cent of the marks obtained under Rule 10(b) examination and 30 per cent of the marks obtained in Rule 10(a) examination should be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the interse seniority from the subsequent recruitment onwards. This position also has been accepted by the Government and it 30/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 was informed by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, that presently the system is the one which had been recommended and accepted by the Government.
40. When that being the position taking only the marks obtained by them under Rule 10(a) examination alone as a basis or criterion to be followed for the purpose of fixing interse seniority is not inconsonance with either Rule 10 of the Adhoc Rules or under Rule 25 proviso to Special Rules.
41. However, the learned Judge in the name of purposive interpretation has gone to the extent of saying that, the examination under Rule 10(a) need not be taken into account as that cannot be the final examination. Moreover under Rule 10(a) examination, no technical training or technical know how, being taught and therefore, the only examination, i.e., Rule 10(b) examination being the technical examination shall be taken into account as the sole criteria for fixing the interse seniority.
42. This approach of the learned Judge in giving full credence only to 31/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 the Rule 10(b) examination, ignoring completely the Rule 10(a) examination, in the considered opinion of us, is erroneous.
43. The reason being that, if we look at Rule 10, it says that, what are all the components and subjects which are to be be taught, wherein the recruits are trained have been mentioned, where, the law subjects, some Conduct Rules and Computer Applications and in Outdoor some physical training etc., all have been included in the Rule 10(a) training. After completion of Rule 10(a) training, there shall be compulsory examination to be conducted where the minimum marks for pass is fixed as 40 per cent. Like that, in Rule 10(b) examination also being a technical examination, so many technical subjects have been given wherein training has to be given and after completion of the training, here also a test would be conducted where compulsorily 50 per cent marks shall be taken by the candidate to secure pass. Both the training will have the same duration of three months, totally six months training.
44. Therefore, the training being form part of the recruitment process, 32/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 as the recruitment is over and appointment is given, without the training, they cannot be pressed into service and when they undergo the training, they have to undergo Rule 10(a) as well as Rule 10(b) training and after completion of Rule 10(a) training they have to write an examination and after completion of Rule 10(b) training also compulsorily they have to write an examination. If we look at the language used in Rule 10(b) training, it has been mentioned that, a suitable test be conducted by the DIG of Police, Technical Service duly assisted by the Director of Police, Telecommunication Branch, at the end of the training and the minimum marks for the post in the test shall be 50 per cent.
45. Like that, in the Rule 10(a) training also at the end, it has been stated that, on completion of training a suitable test shall be conducted and the minimum marks for a pass shall be 40 per cent.
46. Therefore from the language that has been employed by the rule making authority in the Adhoc Rules, it can be easily gathered that, both the training is a must and at the end of both the training there must be a test and in both the tests, the trainee must secure a minimum mark that has been 33/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 prescribed.
47. When that being the position, the theory that, one test can be ignored and another to be taken or one test shall exclude the other test, would destroy the very purpose of having two compulsory training as provided under Rule 10.
48. Therefore the interpretation sought to be given by the learned Judge in the name of purposive interpretation for ignoring the Rule 10(a) training and directed to take only Rule 10(b) training marks as the sole criteria for the purpose of fixing the seniority is an erroneous approach. Therefore for that reason alone, the order impugned passed by the writ court is liable to be interfered with.
49. Insofar as the parties to this appeal is concerned, five appellants are Rule 10(a) group and the contesting private respondents are Rule 10(b) group. If the Rule 10(a) marks alone are taken some meritorious candidates who secured higher marks in the Rule 10(b) examination would be 34/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 sidelined or pushed back in the seniority which would be a injustice to them. At the same if the Rule 10(b) examination marks alone is taken into account and accordingly if the seniority is fixed, some of them like the appellants herein who secured higher marks in the Rule 10(a) examination would be sidelined and they would be pushed back and that would be the injustice to that Rule 10(a) group.
50. This anomalies in fact has been subsequently cleared as stated supra as the Government accepted as a policy that both the training marks would be taken into account at the ratio 30-70 or any other ratios. However insofar as this particular recruitment of the year 1999-2000 made in the year 2001 is concerned, since this confusion had occurred by giving an interpretation on their own by the official respondents to the words "final examination", occurred in proviso to Rule 25 of the Special Rules, therefore such anomalies has to be rectified.
51. For all these reasons stated herein above and the discussions made in this Judgment, we are inclined to dispose of this writ appeal with the following orders :
(a) that the impugned order made by the 35/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 learned Judge in W.P.No.7146 of 2010, dated 19.01.2018 is hereby modified.
(b) The setting aside of the impugned communications before the writ court, i.e.., interse seniority, dated 13.02.2007 and the rejection letter, dated 10.03.2010 is sustained. However, the directions issued by the learned Judge is set aside.
(c) as a sequel, there shall be a direction to the official respondents to take into account the marks obtained by each of the candidates, that is Sub-Inspector (Technical) of the year 1999-2000 selected in the year 2001 for the Police Telecommunication Branch in Tamil Nadu, in both the test at the end of the training under Rule 10(a) as well as Rule 10(b) of the Adhoc Rules and accordingly both the marks to be put together and based on which, the ranking shall 36/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 be redrawn and accordingly, the interse seniority among them shall be recasted.
(d) In this regard, before issuing the recasted seniority list, a draft recasted seniority list along with the combined marks obtained by each of the candidates in both the examination shall also be annexed and be published and thereafter the final recasted interse seniority list shall be published.
(e) The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the official respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
52. With the aforesaid directions, the impugned order made by the learned Judge is modified to the term indicated above and accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. However there shall be no order as to costs.
37/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 (R.S.K., J.) (K.B., J.) 22.12.2023 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes tsvn To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Director General of Police Chennai – 600 004. 3. The Deputy Inspector of Police Technical Services, Chennai – 600 004. 38/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1448 of 2018 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J. tsvn Judgment in W.A.No.1448 of 2018 22.12.2023 39/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis