Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The facts which gave rise to the filing of the Writ Petition are necessary for examination for disposal of this appeal and they are dealt with hereunder.

4. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) issued a Notification dated 19.07.2006 inviting applications for appointment to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. In response, the appellant herein applied for the said post. During the selection process, a physical test was conducted by the Recruitment Board and the appellant/writ petitioner successfully completed the test. Following the physical test, a written examination was conducted on 20.05.2007 as well a viva-voce. He successfully passed the written test as well as viva-voce and secured 77.5 marks out of 100. Hence, the appellant/writ petitioner was issued with an appointment order dated 20.12.2007. In the appointment order, it has been specifically stated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Armed Police) that basic training programme would be conducted and the same would commence on 18.01.2008. In the appointment order, it has been further stated that the appellant/writ petitioner will be imparted with one year institutional training at the Police Training College, Ashok Nagar, Chennai and thereafter, he has to undergo three months practical training in Armed Reserve Police Unit. After commencing his training successfully, the appellant was posted in Armed Reserve, Chennai and he is discharging his duties as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve).

7. I further submit that the petitioner secured 15 marks in Physical Efficiency Test, 59 marks in written Test, 3 marks in Viva Voce and 0.5 marks in Special Marks totally 77.50 marks."

10. Originally, as per the provisional appointment list prepared on the basis of communal rotation, the appellant was allotted category III. Subsequently, it was found that the list prepared on the basis of communal rotation is not correct. Hence, the Chairperson of the TNUSRB furnished the revised provisional selection list by following the communal rotation, in consultation with TNPSC. The revised provisional list and selection list with communal rotation issued by the TNUSRB, was reviewed by the Director General of Police and found to be correct. As per the revised provisional https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ selection list, the communal rotation/modification orders were issued to 269 candidates with regard to the allocation to wings i.e., Taluk/AR and TSP. The modification order was challenged before this Court by some of the candidates in W.P.Nos.11181 and 11182 of 2008. The said writ petitions were allowed on 09.07.2008 on the ground that the impugned order was not passed by the competent authority as provided under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1953. Hence, again, show cause notices were issued pursuant to the direction given by this Court, objections received and considered by the Director General of Police, Chennai and rejected. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.305, Home (Police-3) Department dated 15.04.2011 approving the revised selection list with communal rotation. As per the modified order, the appellant was appointed provisionally as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve), instead of Sub- Inspector of Police (Tamil Nadu Special Police) on 15.04.2008.

14. Countering the above submissions of the counsel for the appellant, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11181 of 2008, which was filed by the successful candidate challenging the provisional selection list with communal rotation issued by TNUSRB, a revised category of list was displayed in the Unit office as per the direction of the Director General of Police. Out of 255 Sub-Inspectors who were selected, all of them have accepted the revised select list. Out of 255, 76 candidates have given objections and requested to allot them to their previous category of allotment. But the appellant herein has not given any such objection regarding the allotment of category-II. Therefore, at this length of time, he cannot question the fixation of seniority. He cannot come forward after lapse of so many years to award marks which has been done in the case of Mr.Alex when the entire issue has become final. At the time of lowering the category after preparation of revised list, the appellant/writ petitioner did not raise any objection. When most of the candidates filed writ petition(s) to include the additional marks for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ the wrong key answer, the appellant/writ petitioner did not choose to implead himself in those writ petition(s). After the entire dispute was settled and after watching all the proceedings, the appellant/writ petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. The appellant is a fence sitter and he cannot seek additional marks and revise or alter the seniority list at a belated stage. The learned Single Judge considered all the aforesaid aspects and dismissed the instant writ petition, which calls for no interference by this Court.