Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs R.Saravanan on 19 January, 2021
W.A(MD)No.656 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.656 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home (Police IV) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police/Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed
Services Recruitment Board,
Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
3.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakirshnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai -4. ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
R.Saravanan ... Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to
set aside the order dated 29.01.2010 made in
W.P(MD)No.850 of 2010.
For Appellants : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.656 of 2011
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
The Writ Appeal is preferred, challenging the order dated
29.01.2010 made in W.P(MD)No.850 of 2010.
2. Brief facts of case are as follows:
The writ petition was filed by an unsuccessful candidate for
the Post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Men-Open Category Quota),
seeking a direction to the authorities to add three more marks to
the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police -
2006 and to select and appoint the petitioner under open category.
The said writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge on
29.01.2010 issuing certain directions. Aggrieved by the same, the
above writ appeal is filed by the official respondents including the
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board(TNUSRB).
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.656 of 2011
3. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the appellants and perused the materials available on record.
4. The similarly placed persons like the respondent / writ
petitioner were also given a direction to be considered for the
selection and appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police. Upon
challenge in the writ appeals, in the judgment dated 16.08.2011 in
W.A(MD)No.472 of 2010 etc., batch, the decision of a Division Bench
of this Court in Secretary to Government, Home (Police)
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others v.
A.Eswaramoorthy and others reported in 2011(1) MLJ 1313,
was referred to, wherein the writ appeals filed by the Government
are allowed setting aside the directions given by this Court earlier,
holding that there is no serious lapse on the part of the Government
and that it was not a deliberate act. Therefore, there was no
necessity for awarding marks in those cases where the key answers
were found to be incorrect. the Special Leave Petitions filed by the
writ petitioners were also dismissed. The Division Bench in the
cited judgment had observed as follows:
“32. In fine,
(1)The appeals filed by the government are
allowed setting aside the directions given in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.656 of 2011
impugned order in para 24(i) to (iv) except para
25(vi) and (vii).
(2) As far as 23 old candidates are concerned,
as stated above, the list provided by the Advocate
General would disclose that revaluation was done and
out of 23 candidates 10 candidates are found to be
eligible for appointment. Accordingly, they are
directed to be appointed subject to usual formalities.”
5. In yet another case, the Division Bench of this Court, vide
judgment dated 12.03.2013 in W.A(MD)No.1093 of 2011, has
pointed out that for the vacancies as on 31.12.2004, notification
was issued on 19.07.2006 for recruitment, examination was
conducted on 20.05.2007; the results were published on
17.07.2007; final selection list was published on 20.12.2007; the
first batch of candidates were sent for training in January, 2008;
and the second batch of candidates were sent for training in
June, 2008 and the entire process was completed for the
recruitment pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2006.
Hence, considering the decision of the Division Bench reported in
2011(1) MLJ 1313(cited supra), the writ appeals were allowed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.656 of 2011
6. No doubt, the facts of the present case is similar to the
facts in the above decision reported in 2011(1) MLJ 1313(cited
supra). Hence, nothing survives in this writ appeal for further
adjudication.
7.In view of the decision of the Division Bench (cited supra),
the Writ Appeal stands allowed and the order of the learned Single
Judge is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
19.01.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pm
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.656 of 2011
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
pm
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.656 of 2011
19.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
