Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioners/respondents have filed the present Modification Petitions seeking to modify the earlier order passed in the main Writ Petitions on 19.02.2010, in W.P.Nos.11057 of 2009 and 5041 of 2008.

2. Learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioners/respondents-TNUSRB submitted that when the writ petitions were filed for the issuance of writ of certiorarifed mandamus to call for the records of the respondents in C.No.155230/Rect-1/2000, dated 04.01.2000, rejecting the representation of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for want of vacancy, with a consequential direction to the third respondent-Director General of Police, Chennai, to issue the appointment order in favour of the petitioners for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, this Court has allowed the writ petitions, by order dated 19.02.2010, by holding that if the respondents-TNUSRB properly applied 80:20 ratio in filling up all 98 additional vacancies, the writ petitioners could have easily got appointed, as they have also obtained the cut off marks of 65, which was applied for selection to the post of Sub Inspector in the year 1994-1995. Since a direction was given by this Court to appoint the writ petitioners from the date of appointment of 1100 Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1994-1995 with all consequential benefits, it will make the 98 excess open market candidates to agitate before the Court to fix their seniority along with 1100 candidates recruited during the year 1994-95. Further, the Rule 25(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services states that the seniority of directly recruted Sub-Inspector of Police have to be fixed on the date of appointment, the date of commencement of probation and marks scored in the final examination of Police Training College. Therefore, since the writ petitioners were sent for training with effect from 21.05.2000, fixing their seniority again on par with the persons appointed during the year 1994-95 will create further seniority problem among them. Hence, it was prayed that the order directing the respondents-TNUSRB to implement the direction issued by this Court to appoint them from the date of appointment of 1100 Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1994-95 with all consequential benefits, may please be modified, by giving a liberty to the petitioners herein to fix the seniority of the writ petitioners only on par with 98 excess candidates, who were appointed and sent for training with effect from 21.05.2000.

3. Opposing the said submission, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners submitted that the present modification petitions itself are not maintainable, for the reason that when the respondents-TNUSRB challenged the order passed by this Court by way of filing writ appeals before the Hon'ble First Bench, learned Government Pleader by brining to the notice of the Hon'ble First Bench the letter bearing R.C.No.D1/2995/2009, dated 21.06.2010, issued by the Director General of Police to the learned Government Pleader, submitted that respondents herein had decided to select the writ petitioners as Sub-Inspector of Police as per the order passed by this Court and further the said communication also stated that the order passed by this Court is going to be complied with and the writ petitioners are going to be posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at the earliest. Only on the basis of the communication dated 21.06.2010, the Hon'ble First Bench granted permission to the Government Pleader to withdraw the writ appeals. Therefore, when the Director General of Police and other respondents have already given undertaking before the First Bench of this Court to implement the order passed by this Court, again, the Inspector General of Police alone, who was not a party before the Courts, except the respondents-TNUSRB, cannot file any modification petition before this Court, for a simple reason that no Single Judge can entertain any application after dismissal of the writ appeal. Therefore, I find some substance in this submission.

7. A mere reading of the above clearly shows that the respondent-TNUSRB undertook before the Hon'ble First Bench to comply with the order passed by this Court at the earliest time. Whileso, an Inspector General of Police, who was not even a party either before me or before the First Bench, cannot legally maintain this modification application. Under these circumstances, since the writ appeals filed by the respondents were withdrawn on the basis of the undertaking tendered before the Hon'ble First Bench, this Court, sitting in single, cannot entertain the modification applications not filed by the respondents-TNUSRB in W.P.Nos.11057 of 2009 and 5041 of 2008 or the appellants in W.A.Nos. 1215 and 1216 of 2011. Accordingly,they are dismissed.