Madras High Court
R.Antony Johnson Jayapaul vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2023
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
W.P.No.27042 of 2012 and W.M.P.No.24680 of 2021 R.Antony Johnson Jayapaul, Commandant Quarters, TSP V Battalion Campus, Sathyamurthy Nagar, Avadi, Chennai - 600 062. ...Petitioner Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Principal Secretary, Home (Pol.1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
3. Additional Director General of Police (Admin), Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. ...Respondents 1/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling forthe records and quashing the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Government Letter No.3/724/P.O.1/2017-3 dated 13.06.2017 rejecting the grant of conversion to petitioner as DSP (Category) as not feasible of compliance and consequently direct the respondents to grant conversion to the petitioner as DSP (Category-1) with effect from the panel year 1996-97 by which he was promoted as Assistant Commandant (Category-3) by sending him for training at the Police Academy for 6 months followed by another course of practical training for 6 months besides to work as DSP (Category-1) in charge of a sub-division for one year by relaxing Rule 6(a), 10(b) and 10(c) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service for the purpose of conferring the rank of Indial Police Service (IPS) on the petitioner within a time frame.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 05.08.2019 made in W.M.P.No.20039/2019 in W.P.No.27042 of 2012) For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.N.Santhosh kumar.
For Respondents : Mr.S.Silambanan,
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.C.Selvaraj.
2/55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quashing the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Government Letter No.3/724/P.O.1/2017-3 dated 13.06.2017 rejecting the grant of conversion of petitioner as DSP (Category) as not feasible of compliance and consequently direct the respondents to grant conversion to the petitioner as DSP (Category-1) with effect from the panel year 1996-97 by which he was promoted as Assistant Commandant (Category-3) by sending him for training at the Police Academy for 6 months followed by another course of practical training for 6 months besides to work as DSP (Category-1) in charge of a sub-division for one year by relaxing Rule 6(a), 10(b) and 10(c) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service for the purpose of conferring the rank of Indial Police Service (IPS) on the petitioner within a time frame.
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell:-
2.1. The petitioner was recruited as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 3/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28.09.1988 and completed the training on 10.07.1988. Thereafter, he completed his probation as Sub-Inspector on 27.09.1988. He was allotted to the Tamil Nadu Special Police, Category-3, as per the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service. There are 3 categories in the Police Department, which are as follows and the channel of promotion is also mentioned hereunder:-
Category (1) Category (2) Category (3)
City Police Armed Reserve Special Police
1 SI - 60% by direct SI - 60% by direct SI - 60% by direct
recruitment recruitment recruitment
2 Inspector Inspector Inspector
3 Asst. Commissioner Deputy Assistant
of Police Superintendent of Commandant
Police
4 Additional Additional Deputy Commandant
Superintendent of Superintendent of
Police Police
5 Superintendent of Deputy Commandant
Police Commissioner
6 Joint Commissioner Nil Nil
7 Additional Nil Nil
Commissioner
8 Nil Nil
4/55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.2. According to Rule 10(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service, a Police Officer, who has reached the rank of Deputy Superintendent (Asst.Commandant), can be transferred to Category-1 (Law & Order Police), provided, one who "(i) possesses a good record of service;
(ii)has successfully completed the period of probation as Dy.superintendent in Category-
3; and (iii) has passed the tests in the subjects mentioned in Rule 6(a)"
2.3. As per G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 07.02.2000, the petitioner was included in the panel for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1996-97 but was actually promoted on 02.06.2000. The petitioner completed his probation in the year 2002. On 15.09.2002 itself the petitioner has represented to the senior officials that he may be transferred to Category-I as Deputy Superintendent of Police, which was followed by several representations.5/55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2.4. Despite this, the request of the petitioner was rejected on 28.07.2009. The petitioner made a detailed representation to the first respondent on 08.09.2009 followed by a reminder on 03.06.2010.
2.5. The Rule 10 (b) and the proviso thereunder, which are extracted below;
"10. Conditions for transfer of members ofthe service from categories (2) and (3) to category (1) under Class-II:
b) No Deputy Superintendents of Police, Category (3), shall except in very special cases, be posted or transferred as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category (1), unless he (i) possessess good record of service, (ii) has completed the prescribed period of probation as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category (3) and (iii) had passed the tests in the subject mentioned in rule 6(a).6/55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Provided that a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category (3) appointed by direct recruitment shall have undergone a course of training prescribed in rule 7 and a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category (3), appointed by transfer from the category of Adjutant Inspector and Inspector of the Tamil nadu Special Police Suboridinate Service shall have undergone a course of raining in Police Training College, Vellore for six months and a course of practical training under a Superintendent of Police for six months, before consideration for transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category(1), under this rule."
2.6. As per the above Rules, for consideration of Deputy Superintendent of Police Category II and Assistant Commandant for posting or transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-I, it is the responsibility of the respondents to consider the cases of eligible officers and depute them to the prescribed trainings. However, the respondents did not undertake such an 7/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis exercise and consequently the Rules have not been acted upon and just it remained on paper.
2.7. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2121 (Home), dated 25.08.1969, by which the Government have also decided that the officers of Armed Police Battalions and Deputy Superintendents of Police (Category-II) may be made eligible for consideration for appointment to Indian Police Service subject to the following conditions:-
"(i) that they have completed a minimum period of one year in-charge of a Sub-Division.
For this purpose, Officers of Arms Police Battalions and Deputy Superintendents of Police (Category 2) who are graduates with exceptional record of service and are below 48 years will be transferred and posted as Deputy Superintendents of Police (Category-1) in-charge of a Sub- Division, the selection being made by a specially constituted committee. The inter-se-seniority of such Officers transferred as Deputy Superintendents of Police (Category 1) shall be fixed with reference to their date of regular appointment to Gazetted posts."
8/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2.8. Pursuant to the above Rules, the petitioner made representations to constitute a Committee, as per G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 09.01.2012, to examine his selection for transfer and post him as Deputy Superintendent of Police category-1. The first respondent has examined his case carefully and decided to accept the proposal of the second respondent. The G.O. further states that otherwise he would be stagnating in his present post for 17 years and if the transfer is given, he would qualify for conferring the rank of IPS, as the petitioner was having many years of service at the time of filing the writ petition.
2.9. The Constitution of a Committee as envisaged in paragraph 4 of the G.O. The petitioner has to be sent for training at the Police Training College and thereafter, he has to pass all tests under Rule 6(a). This has been the procedure followed so far. In the case of one D.Krishnamurthy, Deputy Superintendent of Police., this was the procedure that was followed as would be evident from the Director General of Police's proceedings dated 21.09.1998. Hence the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 9/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire issue relates to the conferring the rank of IPS to the petitioner. There are two modes to get the rank of IPS. The first one as the direct recruit IPS through UPSC Exam. The second one is by way of conferring it on promotees, known as Non-Cadre IPS. There are three categories in Police Department.
a. Category I = Law and Order/Local Police;
b. Category II = Armed Reserve (AR);
c. Category III = Tamil Nadu Police/Battalion
4. The Rules permit those employed in Category-II and Category-III also to be conferred IPS rank subject to certain conditions. In category-I and II, the nomenclature of the post-"DSP" is one and the same. In Category III/TSP, the equivalent post of DSP is known as "Assistant Commandant". However, the salary is one and the same for all three categories.
5. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the III Category from which the petitioner seeks such conferment of IPS and upto the rank of 10/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules shall apply.
But from the rank of DSP, Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service, (for short TNPSSR shall be made applicable. The post of DSP/Assistant Commandant is the gazetted post and there is no dispute on this proposition. Rule 10(b) of TNPSSR states w.r.t. "Conditions for transfer".
"a) xxx (not applicable to this case)
b) No Assistant Commandant or Assistant Commandant (Small Arms) shall except in every special cases be posted or transferred as Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-I unless he:
"(i) he possesses a good record of service;
(ii) has completed the prescribed period of probation as Assistant Commandant or Assistant Commandant (Small Arms) and (iii) has passed the tests in the subjects mentioned in Rule 5(a). For the first proviso to sub-rule (b) the following proviso shall be substituted. (c) Says "No Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-II or Assistant Commandant or Assistant Commandant (Small Arms) shall be posted or transferred as Deputy Superintendent of Police 11/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Category. I under this Rule, unless he is below 48 years of age." d) Every Deputy Superintendent of of Police Category-II or Assistant Commandant or Assistant Commandant (Small Arms) posted or transferred as DSP Category-I under this Rule shall be in charge of a Police sub-division for a period of not less thatn one year and after satisfactory completion of this charge shall be confirmed on Category-1 in their next available vacancy. e) The selection of suitable officers belonging to Category-
II, III and IIIA under Class-II for being posted of transferred under this Rule shall be made by Government"
6. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that from the above, it is clear that those who are working in Category-II and III can also be made eligible for being appointed to I.P.S. If found eligible, the interse seniority shall only be in accordance with Rule 11 of the said Rules. It is significant to point out that Rule 11 does not give authority to any officer or the government to fix interse seniority in any other manner. In other words, the fixation of 12/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis interse seniority cannot be at the whims and fancies of the Government or the Appointing Authority. He relied on Rule 11 and the same is extracted hereunder:-
"The interse seniority of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-II and III transferred or posted as DSP, Category-I in accordance with Rule 10 shall be fixed with reference to the date of their regular appointment to gazetted posts."
7. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.2121, Home Department, dated 25.08.1969 communicated with Chief Office Endorsement RC.No.6199/GA-1/dated 18.11.1969 which prescribed eligiblity criteria for conferring Indian Police Service (IPS). The Government have also decided that the Officers or Armed Police Battaloins and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-II) may be made eligible for consideration for appointment of Indian Police Service subject to the following condition;
"a. That they have completed a minimum period of one year in-charge of a cub-division 13/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For this purpose, Officers of Armed Police Battalions and Deputy Superintendents of Police (Category-II) who are graduates with exceptional records of service and are below 48 years of age will be transferred and posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) in-charge of a sub-division the selection being made by a specially constituted committee. The inter-seniority of such Officers transferred as Deputy Superintendents of Police (Category-I) shall be fixed with reference to their date of regular appointment to Gazetted Posts."
8. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the petitioner was an M.Com. first Class graduate even at the time of initial appointment and in the application itself, he opted to join Category-III only. It is not that he was sent to TSP/Category-III since he secured low marks, as wrongly contended by the respondents.
"(i) That he should be below 48 years of age
(ii) He must have completed probation as Assistant Commandant
(iii)He must have impeccable service records."14/55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. At that time, the age of the petitioner was 38 years six months and 28 days. Then in 1988, the petitioner was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police and in 1990 he was promoted as Inspector of Police in Category-III. On 25.10.2004, the petitioner again made a request for his conversion to Category-I for being considered as IPS and subsequently, on 17.02.2005, a representation was also made by the petitioner for the above. Then in the year 2005 the petitioner was promoted as the Commandant. Since 2005, the petitioner has been stagnating in the same post without any promotion for the past 18 years. Whereas, had he become Superintendent of Police in Law and Order Department, he could have been promoted as DIG not later than the year 2015.
10. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that on account of repeated representations made by the petitioner, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed G.O.Ms.48 Home Department stipulating the above eligibility criteria besides observing that the persons like the petitioner would 15/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis be stagnating for over 17 years unless he is promoted otherwise. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the G.O.No.48 is reproduced below:-
" 4. The Government have examined the case carefully and have decided to accept the proposal of Director General of Police. Accordingly, the Government orders that a Committee be constituted with the following composition to examine the selection of Thin Anthony Johnson Jeyapaul, Commandant, Small Arms for transfer and posting him as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-
1) as per the rule stipulated in GO. Ms.No. 2121.
Home dated 25.08.1969, so as to enable him for consideration for Appointment to IPS:
1) DGP. Tamil Nadu
2)Additional General of Police and Member, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
3)Additional Director General of Police, (Administration) Chennai.
5. A Report on the selection made may be submitted to the Government within a period of one month to pursue further.
Thus, the report ought to have been submitted on or 16/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis before 09.02.2012. As Shown above. Nearly 5 representations were given by the Petitioner before issuing this G.O. When he made the 1 Representation on 15.09.2002 after completing his probation as Assistant Commandant, the Petitioner was aged 38 years only. But the Department took inspite of 5 reminders, nearly 10 years to issue the G.O. for constituting the Committee. Again, the Committee should have been constituted and the report submitted within one Month, i.e., on or before 09.02.2012.”
11. As per G.O. the report of the Committee should be given on or before 09.02.2012. The petitioner has given nearly five representations even before the issuance of G.O. When he made the first representation on 15.09.2002, after completing his probation as Assistant Commandant, the petitioner was aged 38 years only. Inspite of 5 reminders, the Department took nearly 10 years to issue the G.O. for constituting the Committee. Again, the Committee should have been constituted and the report submitted within one month, i.e., on or before 09.02.2012. But, the Committee got constituted only on 05.04.2017 17/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis after a lapse of 5 years from the date of first representation by the petitioner.
The Expert Committee appointed by the Government considered various Rule positions and Government orders. As mentioned in proceedings dated 05.04.2017, the eligibility criteria for category-II and category-III shall be:-
"(i) appointed as DSP in category-I
(ii) made to work as DSP in Category-I/Law and Order, as in charge of the sub-division under the supervision SP for a year. (ii) made to undergo training at Police Academy for 6 months. (iii) to undergo practical training (6 months)."
12. At the end of the training, such appointed person shall pass out the tests prescribed under Rule 6, such as IPC, special and local criminal laws, Cr.P.C., Evidence Act, Medical Jurisprudence, scientific aids to criminal investigation and so on. Therefore, while granting conversion to the eligible person as DSP Category-I, such appointment are made by relaxing 6(a) initially, so that they will be able to pass the test at the end of training period. 18/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This is the standard arrangement in the Department while recommending any person for being appointed to I.P.S. For Mr.Manoharan and Mr.Krishnamurthy also, such relaxation upon Rule 6 was given.
13. After analyzing the Rule position and the precedents in the cases of D.Krishnamurthy, Manoharan, the Committee analyzed in paragraph 4 of the proceedings dated 05.04.2017, the service credentials of the petitioner. At the end, the committee states ''these ratings indicate that he possesses good record of service." In paragraph 6, it is observed that the petitioner's age as on 09.01.2012 was below 48 years making him eligible for consideration for conversion as DSP Category-I.
14. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the expert committee observed as follows:-
"a) After carefully going through his service records and conditions required for conversion to category 1 under class II of Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service, the committee 19/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis recommends the appointment of Thiru R. Antony Johnson Jeyapaul Commandant (Category-III) formerly of Small Arms, Avadi now TSP II Battalion, Veerapuram as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-1) by relaxing rule 6(a), 10(b) and 10 (c) of the said Rules. The expert committee has also recommended for relaxation of Rule 6(a), 10(b), 10(c) of the said Rules.
As stated above, Rule 6(a) deals with passing the examination on certain law subjects. Rule 10(b) deals with eligibility of the Assistant Commandant to get conversion as DSP Category-I if he has a good record of service, completed probation as Assistant commandant and so on. Rule 10(c) only stipulates that such candidates shall be below 48 years of age. Therefore, the committee has clearly established the eligibility of the petitioner for consideration to the rank of IPS."
20/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the expert committee has gone a step further and exceeded its jurisdiction by thoroughly fixing the interse seniority of the petitioner, while appointing as DSP Category-I. The petitioner's name was included in the year 1996-97 panel for the post of the Assistant Commandant which is the gazetted rank vide G.O.No.130 dated 07.02.2000. Therefore, as per Rule 11 of the above Rules, his interse seniority shall be fixed only from the date of his regular appointment in the gazetted post. To support this hypothesis, it is to be mentioned here that in para 8 of the above proceedings, the committee states that as per Rule 11(a) the petitioner interse seniority shall be fixed in the year 2000 only but since his batchmates were promoted as DSP's in the panel year 2012-13, his conversion as DSP shall be placed at the year 2012-13.
16. In addition to the above rule position, the Department itself considered the cases of one Mr.Manoharan, who was granted the interse seniority from the date he was appointed to the equivalent rank of DSP. He was in the rank of Deputy Commandant in Border Security Force, which is above 21/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the rank of DSP. When absorbed in Tamil Nadu Government Service, he was posted as Additional SP, Special Security Group. The post of Additional SP is also above the rank of DSP and from that post he was sent for training and appointed as DSP (Category-I) from the date he was appointed in the gazetted rank equivalent to DSP. Secondly, this precedent shows that an officer higher in rank to that of DSP was appointed as DSP (Category-I) for such training purposes, vide G.O.No.98 dated 17.08.2002. Thus, Mr.S.Manoharan was given the interse seniority of the date from his regular appointment in gazetted post. Similarly, one D.Krishna Murthy, who worked as DSP in Category-II/AR and was given such conversion and appointment as DSP (Category-I) from the date he was appointed as DSP (Category-II) by relaxing Rule 6(a) and Rule 10(a) of the above rules, vide G.O.No.1263 dated 22.08.2007.
17. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that from the above two precedents, it can be safely concluded that the respondents had already given the interse seniority while granting the conversion and appointing equal rank persons from Category-II/Category-III to Category-I from the date they 22/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis were appointed in equal cadre. The same yardstick has to be extended to the petitioner.
18. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the copy of the letter No.39030/GB(II),2008 dated 21.05.2009 issued by the second respondent Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu to the first respondent Principal Secretary to Government Home Department, wherein he has forwarded the representation dated 08.05.2009 of Thiru.R.Antony Johnson Jayapal addressed to the Government requesting him to depute to the Tamil Nadu Police Academy to qualify and to be posted as Sub Divisional Officer, to enable him to appointed by the Indian Police Service. Since he had 13 years more service or otherwise, he would stagnate in the present rank for 14 years. The said letter reads as under:-
23/55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19. The learned Senior Counsel also drew the attention to the letter No.69208/Police.1/2009-4, dated 12.01.2010, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Home Department to the second respondent/Director General of Police, wherein it has been stated that it has been proposed to depute Thiru.R.Antony Johnson Jayapaul, Commandant, Small Arms for training in law to Tamil Nadu Police Academy to qualify himself to be posted as Sub Divisional Officer and thereby to get himself qualified for conversion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category I and to IPS and the reply given by the second respondent Director General of Police vide RC.No.GB III (2)/7328/2010 dated 09.10.2010. The said letter reads as under:- 26/55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. The learned Senior Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the Tamil Nadu Special Police Manual Rule 7 which provides for training and the same is extracted hereunder:-
"7. Training-(i) A probationer recruited direct as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category (1) Shall, during the prescribed period of probation undergo-
(a) A course of training in the Police Training College at Vellore for a period of not less than one year; and
(b) A course of practical training under a Superintendent of Police thereafter.
These periods of training shall count for increments in the time-scale of pay applicable to members of the service.
(ii) A probationer recruited direct as Deputy Superintendent of Police, category (3) shall, during the prescribed period of probation undergo.
(a) A course of training in the Police Training College at Vellore for a period of not less than six months
(b) A course of training in the Tamil Nadu Special Police for a period of not less than six months; and
(c) a course of practical training for not less than six months under a Superintendent of Police thereafter."
28/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and two additional counter affidavits.
22. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 09.01.2012 to examine the selection of the petitioner for conferring to Indian Police Service.
23. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents dated 06.03.2018, it is stated that in pursuance of the above Government Orders, the said committee have examined the selection of the writ petitioner for transfer and posting as Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Category 1) and drawn its proceedings in Rc.No.84083/GB.3(2)/2016, dated 05.04.2017. The observation of the Committee is extracted hereunder:-
"a) carefully going through his service records and conditions required for conversion to category 1 under class II of Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service, the committee recommends the appointment of 29/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Thiru R. Antony Johnson Jeyapaul, Commandant formerly of Small Arms, Avadi now TSP III Battalion, Veerapuram as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category 1) by relaxing rule 6(a), 10(b) and 10 (c) of the said Rules
b) Thiru R. Antony Johnson Jeyapaul became Assistant Commandant in the year 2000. In case of conversion his seniority will be fixed as Category 1 Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 2000 as per rule 11(a) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service. However, the Category 1 officer who were recruited in the year 1987 as Sub-Inspector of Police along with Thiru R. Antony Johnson Jeyapaul were higher in recruitment merit list. He was allotted Category 3 at the time of recruitment as he was low in merit list. He became Assistant Commandant in the year 2000 while category 1 officers of same batch became DSP after 2007 in category
1. Therefore, it will not be fair to place him as DSP in Category 1 with seniority of year 2000 after conversion.
Further his junior in 1987 batch who were appointed as directly recruited Sub-Inspector of Police in TSP and who opted for conversion to Taluk Police in the category of Sub-Inspector of Police have been promoted as Deputy 30/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Superintendent of Police (Category 1) in the panel for the year 2012-2013.
c) Therefore, the committee while recommending his case for conversion to category-1 Deputy Superintendent of Police, also recommends that in case of Government approving the conversion to Category-1 Deputy Superintendent of Police his seniority should not be fixed as per rule 11 (a) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service placing him in the year 2000 rather his seniority should be fixed with reference to his original seniority in the category of Sub-Inspector of Police (TSP) (i.e) placing him in the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Category-1) Panel of 2012-2013, above his junior included in the said panel.”
24. The Committee report was forwarded to the Government for consideration and the Government in their letter No.31724/Police.1/2017-3, dated 13.06.2017 have stated that as per Rule 10 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service, members of service from Category-2, 3 and 3A of Class-II (i.e) Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed 31/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Reserve), Assistant Commandant in Tamil Nadu Special Police, Assistant Commandant (Small Arms) shall be transferred to category-I of Class II (i.e) Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Category-I). The petitioner was acting as Commandant (i.e. in category of class-I) and there is no provision in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service for the conversion of Commandant to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-I.
25. The respondents have filed the additional counter affidavit dated 05.08.2018 to the amendment petition filed by the petitioner for amending the existing prayer. During the year 1994, it was decided to conduct a pre-induction course of training for six months to the eligible Sub-Inspector of Police serving in Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police for considering the case for conversion as Sub Inspector of Police (Taluk). The petitioner who was eligible for said the pre-induction course of training for conversion from the Tamil Nadu Special Police to Taluk Sub Inspector of Police, has expressed his unwillingness during the year 1994-1995 to attend the said training. Considering the quick promotional prospects in the Tamil Nadu 32/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Special Police, the petitioner had opted to remain in the Tamil Nadu Special Police, whereas, most of the batchmates of the petitioner have expressed their willingness to attend the pre-induction course of training for conversion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Taluk) and they were converted as Sub-Inspector of Police (Taluk) during the year 1997.
26. At the time of conversion, the direct Sub-Inspectors of Police who were appointed on 28.09.1987 and serving in the Tamil Nadu Special Police, were promoted and mere serving as Inspector of Police from the year 1990 itself. The batchmates of the petitioner who were already promoted as Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Special Police prior to the conversion process, have foregone their seniority in the Tamil Nadu Special Police and they were converted to Taluk Police as Sub-Inspector of Police. Since the petitioner had expressed his unwillingness for conversion as Taluk Sub-Inspector of Police and remained in the Tamil Nadu Special Police, he was elevated to the post of Assistant Commandant, Deputy Commandant and Commandant on 02.06.2000, 19.08.2003 and 30.07.2005, respectively. Thus, the petitioner was elevated to 33/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the rank of Commandant in the Tamil Nadu Special Police during the year 2005 itself. But, the Sub-Inspectors of Police who were directly recruited in Taluk Police on 28.09.1987 and higher in the recruitment merit list than the petitioner have reached the zone of consideration for promotion to the rank of Superintendent of Police only during the year 2018. Further, the Sub-Inspectors of Police who were directly recruited in Armed Reserve on 28.09.1987 and converted to Taluk Police and higher in recruitment merit list than the petitioner are also still serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category
1). Likewise, the batchmates converted from the Tamil Nadu Special Police to Taluk Police as Sub-Inspector of Police are now serving only as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I). There is no provisions in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service for the conversion of Commandant (Class I, Category-I) to Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Class II, Category
1). As the petitioner is seeking conversion from the post of Commandant (Class I, Category-I) to Deputy Superintendent of Police (Class II, Category-I), the Government in their letter No.31724/Police-1/2017-3, dated 13.06.2017 have duly considered the claim of the petitioner and ordered that the request of 34/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis individual is not feasible of compliance as it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service.
27. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
28. In this case, the petitioner’s dream and ambition is to become an I.P.S. Officer. There are two modes to get Indian Police Service (IPS). First one as the Direct recruit I.P.S through U.P.S.C exam. The second one is by way of conferring it on promotees, known as Non-Cadre I.P.S. There are three categories in Police Department.
"Category I = Law and Order/Local Police; Category II = Armed Reserve (AR);
Category III = Tamil Nadu Special Police/Battalion."
The petitioner was serving as Commandant in Tamil Nadu Special Police and comes under category 3 mentioned above.
35/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29. The Tamil Nadu Special Police Manual Rule – 7 which deals with training is extracted hereunder:-
"7. Training-(i) A probationer recruited direct as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category (1) Shall, during the prescribed period of probation undergo-
(a) A course of training in the Police Training College at Vellore for a period of not less than one year; and
(b) A course of practical training under a Superintendent of Police thereafter.
These periods of training shall count for increments in the time-scale of pay applicable to members of the service.
(ii) A probationer recruited direct as Deputy Superintendent of Police, category (3) shall, during the prescribed period of probation undergo.
(a) A course of training in the Police Training College at Vellore for a period of not less than six months
(b) A course of training in the Tamil Nadu Special Police for a period of not less than six months; and (c) a course of practical training for not less than six months under a Superintendent of Police thereafter."
36/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30. On 08.05.2009, the petitioner gave a representation requesting for permanent absorbtion in Category-I of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The second respondent/The Director General of Police by his No.39030/GEIII(2,2008, dated 21.05.2009 to the Principal Secretary to Government Home Department, Chennai and the said letter is extracted hereunder:-
37/55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
31. Then the Government/first respondent by letter No.69208/Police,1/72009-4 dated 12.01.2010 wrote a letter to the second respondent/Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu that the Government has 38/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis proposed to depute the petitioner for training in law to Tamil Nadu Police Academy to qualify himself to be appointed as Sub Divisional Officer and thereby to get himself qualified for conversion as the Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-I and to IPS and the said letter is extracted hereunder:- 39/55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
32. In this connection he has requested the second respondent to clarify the following:-
(i)In such conversion invite lot of similar request from all other higher categories.
(ii)In the stagnation post of command this separate by any other remedial measures, and in response to this letters, the second respondent vide RC.No.GB333(II)/73/28/2010 dated 09.10.2010 as given the clarification as follows:-40/55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
33. On the representations made, the Tamil Nadu Government passed G.O.Ms.No.48, Home Department narrating the eligibility creteria besides observing that the petitioner would be stagnating for over 17 years unless he is 41/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis promoted and the relevant paragraphs 4 & 5 of the G.O.No.48 is extracted hereunder:-
"4. The Government have examined the case carefully and have decided to accept the proposal of Director General of Police. Accordingly, the Government orders that a Committee be constituted with the following composition to examine the selection of Thin Anthony Johnson Jeyapaul, Commandant, Small Arms for tronefer and posting him as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-1) as per the rule stipulated in GO. Ms.No. 2121. Home dated 25.08.1969, so as to enable him for consideration for Appointment to IPS:
1) DGP Tamil Nadu
2)Additional General of Police and Member, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
3)Additional Director General of Police, (Administration) Chennai.
5. A Report on the selection made may be submitted to the Government within a period of one month to pursue further. Thus, the report ought to have been submitted on or before 09.02.2012. As Shown above. Nearly 5 representations were given by the Petitioner before issuing this G.O. When he made the 1 Representation on 15.09.2002 after completing his probation as Assistant Commandant, 42/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the Petitioner was aged 38 years only. But the Department took inspite of 5 reminders, nearly 10 years to issue the G.O. for constituting the Committee. Again, the Committee should have been constituted and the report submitted within one Month, i.e., on or before 09.02.2012.”
34. The above G.O. was issued in the year 2012 to constitute the Committee whereas the Committee was constituted only on 05.04.2017 after a delay of 5 years and no reasons have been given by the respondents for such a inordinate delay. The second respondent Director General of Police has stated in his letter dated 21.05.2009, in which he has requested that the representation dated 08.05.2009 of the petitioner be considered and requested an earlier order of the Government in the matter. This clearly shows that the petitioner is eligible to be conferred to the rank of I.P.S. since he has fulfilled all the eligibility conditions/Creteria/Rules as the same is evidence to the above letter.
35. The petitioner made his first representation on 05.09.2002 after completing his probation as Assistant Commandant and at that time, the age of 43/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the petitioner was 32 years only. But despite five reminders, the first respondent has taken nearly 10 years to issue a G.O. in the year 2012 even for constituting the Committee.
36. This Court by an order dated 18.08.2022, directed the petitioner to submit his representation to the second respondent Director General of Police and the said representation was submitted on the same day i.e. 18.08.2022 and the second respondent has assured the petitioner to forward his representation to the Government. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the G.O.Ms.No.4070 dated 05.07.2014 by which one G.Muthu Manickam to become D.S.P. in Category – II was sent for training as DSP (Category – I Law & Order) and his seniority as DSP (Category – I) was fixed from the date became DSP, Category – II i.e. as per the original DSP panel year.
37. A Memo is filed by the petitioner dated 08.03.2023. There are earlier occasions where three similarly placed officers like the petitioner were conferred I.P.S who were previously appointed and confirmed as Deputy 44/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Superintendent of Police Category-3 and the names of the Officers are as follows and the same is reflected in the letter written by the second respondent Director General of Police, dated 21.05.2009.
(i)K.G.Dhinamani
(ii)K.Vadivelu
(iii)S.Manoharan.
All the three officers retired as Inspector General of Police. In this case, the petitioner has been promoted as Assistant Commandant which is a gazetted rank vide G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 07.02.2000. The Expert Committee recommends the appointment of the petitioner as DSP category-I by relaxing Rule 6A, 10B & 10C of the said Rules. The Expert Committee has also recommended for relaxation of Rule 6 (A), 10(B), 10(C) of the said Rules. The Rule 6(8) deals with passing the examination on certain law i.e. Rule 10(b) deals with eligibility of the Assistant Commandant to get a conversion as DSP category-I, if he has a good record of service, completed probation as Assistant Commandant and so on. Rule 10(c) only prescribes that such candidates shall be below 48 years of age. Therefore, the Committee has clearly established the eligibility of the petitioner for conversion to the rank of Indian Police Service 45/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (IPS). As per Rule 11 the interse seniority shall be fixed only from the date of his regular appointment in the gazette post and the Committee fixed the inter seniority of the petitioner by fixing his conversion as DSP in the year 2012-13 since his batchmates were promoted as DSP in the panel year 2012-2013.
38. In this regard, this Court is of the view that the Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction, since the Committee has been constituted only to find the suitability of the petitioner to recommend for appointment to the Indian Police Service. When three similarly placed persons who were initially DSP in Category III has been appointed to Indian Police Service.This petitioner alone has been denied the same which amounts to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
39. When a Rule or Principle is applicable to one set of persons, then the same must be applied to the similarly placed persons and depriving the same amounts, to discrimination and is in violation of Administrative law. In G.O.Ms.475 one similarly placed person as of the petitioner namely, 46/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.Manoharan has been sent for training from the rank of Additional SP which is higher than the DSP rank and the Committee knew it very well. But he was promoted as Commandant and there is no observation by the expert Committee that in such a situation, the petitioner cannot be sent for training. The Rule 11 is Mandatory to fix such interse seniority of the said person appointed to the gazetted rank in any of these three categories namely; (i) DSP (Category I), (ii) DSP (Category II) and Assistant Commandant (Category III). This apart in G.O.Ms.No.1263 one D.Krishnamuthy was given interse seniority from the date he was appointed as DSP (Category II). Similarly, he was also given interse seniority from the date he was appointed to the gazetted post. The petitioner ought to have been sent for training as DSP category I in the year 2012 itself as per G.O.Ms.No.48, according to which the report outght to have been filed within one month i.e. on or before 10.01.2012. Though the G.O. was issued vide order dated 09.01.2012, the same was not done. If the petitioner was sent for training for one year, he would have been a better person in his career and retired as Inspector General of Police (IGP), like the similarly persons already retired as I.G.P. namely K.G.Dhinamani, 47/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K,Vadivelu, B.Krishnamurthy and S.Manoharan. There is no doubt that the future prospects of the petitioner in becoming an Indian Police Service Officer has been shattered by the respondents, since in each and every stage, there was inordindate delay in the proceedings which has ultimately caused grave injustice to the petitioner. G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 09.01.2022 is issued only to constitute a selection Committee in regard to the eligibility of the petitioner to be conferred Indian Police Service and not fixing the interse seniority. The selection committee, having found that the petitioner as eligible in all aspects, found the petitioner has fulfiled all the eligibility creteria mentioned in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Rules. But the Committee, while recommending his case for convention to category – I Deputy Superintendent of Police, also recommends that in case of the Government approving the conversion to category-I, Deputy Superintendent of Police is seniority should not be placed as per Rule 11A of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service placing in the year 2000. Rather the seniority should be fixed with reference to his original seniority in the category of Sub Inspector of Police placing him Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category I) in the panel year 2012-2013. 48/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This recommendation by the Committee is pursuant to the G.O, and Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction.
40. The G.O.Ms.No.48 (Police-I) Department, dated 09.10.2012 was issued constituting the selection Committee for posting the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) and the report of the selection Committee has to be submitted to Government within a period of one months i.e. on or before 10.01.2012 whereas the committee was constituted only on 05.04.2017 and the third respondent vide letter RC.No.8408/GPIV(2)/2016 dated 06.04.2017, recommended the selection of the petitioner presently Commandant Tamil Nadu Special Police III Battalion for transfer and posting in Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Categry -I) in Clause I, Category I in clause 3 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service and also recommended the appointment of the aforesaid officers of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) by relaxing Rule 6A, 10(b) and 10(c) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service and as informed that in case of conversion, the seniority of the petitioner will be fixed as category I 49/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 2000 as per Rule 11 A of the Tamil Nadu Police Service and the first respondent has passed the order only on 13.06.2017 stating that the proposal sent by the second respondent dated 06.04.2017 is not feasible of compliance as it is not in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Police Service and the same has been issued after an inordinate delay of five years.
41. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil.Appeal.No.6868 of 2021 dated 22.11.2021 (in the case of State of U.P & others Vs Vikash Kumar Singh & Others) relied on by the respondent is not applicable to the present case as in that case, while being eligible relaxation was sought which was not accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the present case, the petitioner possess all the eligibility and he deserves the same which is not disputed fact by the selection committee. The Selection Committee was fully satisfied that he has all the eligible creteria mentioned in the Tamil Nadu Special Rules and Deputy Superintendent of Police Category -I and the Government precluded it is not feasible to comply with the 50/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis recommendation of the selection committee. The petitioner is going to attain superannuation on 28.02.2024. The petitioner fulfilled all the eligible conditions for being conferred the rank of IPS and it is due to the administrative delay that he was not appointed. He may be considered to be promoted as DIG from the present rank of Commandant due to post of DIG in the Armed Police itself. Even though, he is promoted he need not undego any training for one year, since it is only for those appointed as DSP, Category-I, TSP, Category-II and Assistant Commandant Category-III. It was also brought to the notice by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Armed Police (AB) of the Department is functioning as a Head Quarters of all battalions. There are DIG, IG, ADGP, specially posted in those ranks. So, this Court do not find any impediment for the Government to promote the petitioner as a DIG in Armed Reserve.
42. The inordinate administrative delay cannot deprive a person of his right to be promoted or to be appointed to a particular post when he has the required qualification and in this case, it had shattered the dreams of the 51/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner to become a confferred IPS Officer for no fault on his part. The entire delay is attributed to the State administration.
43. The respondents cannot apply the rules according to their whims of fancies, it should be uniform and applicable to all the persons as per law. It cannot deprive one person of the relief as per law when other 3 similarly placed persons were granted the same relief.
44. In this case, right from the beginning the procedure adopted by the respondents in the case of the petitioner is not appreciated by this Court. Because of the Lethargic attitude of the respondents the petitioner got stagnated in the post of Commandant for the last 8 years.
45. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in this case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Armed Reserved. 52/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
46. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to promote the petitioner as the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Armed Reserved within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and this order is only with regard to the petitioner since the case is peculiar in nature. It is also made clear that this order will not be a precedent and this order is confined only to the petitioner. In other words, the consideration of the case of the petitioner to the post of DIG Armed Reserved shall not be treated as a precdent in future and it will be a super numery post created for a particular case.
47. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.04.2023 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order kmm Note: Issue order copy on 08.05.2023 53/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To
1.The Principal Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home (Pol.1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
3. Additional Director General of Police (Admin), Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
54/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
kmm W.P.No.27042 of 2012 28.04.2023 55/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis