Madras High Court
M.Sundarapandian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 July, 2021
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
and
W.M.P(MD)No.17241 of 2019
M.Sundarapandian ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Home (Police V) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai.
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services,
Recruitment Board,
No.4, 9th Cross Street,
Indira Nagar,
Adayar, Chennai – 20.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption City-II Detachment,
No.6, First Canal Cross Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Adayar,
Chennai. ... Respondents
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed in Rc.No.15415A/Rect.2(1)/2014,
dated 26.06.2019 by the second respondent and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner in
the appropriate place in the list of candidates selected for appointed as Sub-
Inspector of Police for the year 1997-1998 and disburse all service and
monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, to quash the
impugned order, dated 26.06.2019, passed by the second respondent and
consequently to direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner
in the appropriate place in the list of candidates selected as Sub-Inspector
of Police for the year 1997-1998 and disburse all the service and monetary
benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
2.According to the petitioner, the second respondent issued a
Notification, dated 02.04.1998, calling for applications for the post of
Sub-Inspector of Police for men and women. The second respondent notified
the post Range wise. The petitioner participated in the selection process at
Madurai and he was successful in physical test and written examination.
Further, according to the petitioner, he has done well in the interview
conducted by the Board of interview on 11.12.1998 at Police Training
College, Chennai. The petitioner secured 75.68%. But, no appointment
order was issued by the respondents.
3.The petitioner came to know that few IPS officers have been
prosecuted before a Court of law for forgery and other offences. Hence, the
Government ordered enquiry regarding irregularities committed during the
course of selection process. Based on the complaint given by the third
respondent, a case in Crime No.1/Ac/2002/CC.II, dated 28.02.2002, for the
offences under Sections 120-B, 167, 468, 471 r/w 465 and 189 I.P.C and
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered against
three named persons and some unnamed persons. The third respondent in
his compliant has stated that the marks of some of the candidates were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
reduced and more marks were given to 70 candidates, so as to give
appointment. The respondents fixed 78.50 as cut-off mark for Madurai
Range in B.C Category and selected the candidates, who have secured more
than 78.50 marks in Madurai Range. The said cut-off mark was over and
above the cut-off mark fixed by all other ranges. At the same time, B.C
candidates, who have secured below 78.50 in other ranges, have been
selected, particularly, in Ramnad range, the cut-off mark was fixed as 65.18
and B.C candidates, who have secured over and above 65.18 were selected,
but candidates in other ranges, who secured over and above 65.18 marks,
were disqualified. The method adopted by the respondents was
discriminative in nature. Hence, some unsuccessful B.C candidates, who
were participated in the selection and secured more than 65.18 marks, filed
O.A.No.9825 of 1998, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
challenging the Range level selection process. The Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, by an order, dated 19.07.2001, directed the
respondents to appoint the candidates, who have secured more than 65.18
marks. The said order was complied with by the respondents by appointing
the candidates, who have approached the Tribunal. The petitioner and
others filed O.A.No.207 of 2004 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal claiming the same relief. On the other hand, some of the other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
unsuccessful candidates in different categories have also filed Writ Petitions
before the Principal Bench of this Court to extend the order of Tribunal,
dated 19.07.2001 in O.A.No.9825 of 1998, by following state-wise seniority.
The respondents also preferred an appeal, challenging the order of the
Tribunal, dated 19.07.2001 in O.A.No.9825 of 1998. O.A.No.207 of 2004
filed by the petitioner and other matters were transferred to the Principal
Bench of this Court and taken up along with the similar Writ Petitions. The
Division Bench of this Court, by an order, dated 25.02.2004, made in
W.P.No.17639 of 2001 etc., batch [The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its
Secretary Vs. S.Mariappan and another], directed the respondents 1 and 3
herein to consider the case of the candidates, who have approached the
Court within one year from the order of the Tribunal, dated 19.07.2001, in
O.A.No.9825 of 1998 and rejected other cases on the ground of delay and
laches. Challenging the same, the petitioner and others approached the
Hon'ble Apex Court by filing S.L.P(C)No.21828 of 2006.
4.The Hon'ble Apex Court, by Judgment, dated 07.08.2014, in Civil
Appeal No.7667 of 2014, held that the petitioner and others are entitled to
be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police based on their merits. But, the
Hon'ble Apex Court fixed the seniority at the bottom of the regularly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
selected candidates as Sub-Inspector of Police as on the date of the order of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, viz., 07.08.2014, recording the consent given by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the
consent given by his counsel was without his knowledge. Based on the order
of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of
Police on 15.03.2015.
5.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, only
the State Government can fix the seniority of selected candidates. The order
of the Division Bench is of the year 2004 and the Hon'ble Apex Court passed
the order only in the year 2014. The delay in deciding the cases by the
Court will not be a ground for denying the seniority of the petitioner. As per
the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.02.2004, the
Government issued G.O(Ms)No.534, Home (Police-3) Department, dated
06.07.2009, granting seniority to 49 persons, based on their marks
obtained in the final examination. The petitioner is also entitled to such
benefit as that of his batch mates.
6.In such circumstances, the petitioner made a representation to the
respondents on 24.05.2016, claiming seniority to be fixed along with 49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
persons, who were given seniority, vide G.O(Ms)No.534, Home (Police-3)
Department, dated 06.07.2009. The petitioner's representation was rejected
by an order, dated 31.08.2016, by the second respondent. Challenging the
same, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.19544 of 2016. While
the said Writ Petition was pending, he filed review petition on 06.08.2018
before the second respondent to review the earlier order, dated 31.08.2016
and restricted the prayer in W.P(MD)No.19544 of 2016, to dispose of his
review petition and the said Writ Petition was disposed of, by an order,
dated 05.10.2018, directing the respondents to dispose of the review
petition within a period of two months. The second respondent, without
considering the case of the petitioner, erroneously rejected the review
petition on 26.06.2019. Challenging the said rejection order, the petitioner
has come out with the present Writ Petition.
7.The respondents filed counter-affidavit extensively mentioning the
facts relating to the case of the petitioner from the year 1998.
8.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner was appointed, as per the order of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, dated 07.08.2014 in Civil Appeal No.7667 of 2014 and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
seniority of the petitioner was fixed, as per the order of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, wherein, it has been categorically stated that the petitioner and
others will be placed at the bottom of the regularly appointed candidates as
Sub-Inspector of Police on the date of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
viz., 07.08.2014. The candidates selected along with the petitioner have
again filed Review Petition (C) Nos.2872 to 2876 of 2014 in Civil Appeal
Nos.7668 to 7672 of 2014 for reviewing the common order, dated
07.08.2014. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by an order dated 06.05.2015,
dismissed the review petitions. The learned Government Advocate further
submitted that one V.Jeyabalan, similarly placed person, gave a
representation, dated 25.04.2016 for the very same relief, as claimed by
the petitioner. The said request was rejected on 31.08.2016 as that of the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the said V.Jeyabalan has
filed W.P.No.44805 of 2016 before the Principal Bench of this Court and this
Court, by an order, dated 03.01.2017, dismissed the said Writ Petition at the
admission stage itself relying on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9.The petitioner has submitted a representation on 24.05.2016 and
also filed review petition on 06.08.2018 before the second respondent,
wherein he requested to fix his seniority along with 1997-98 batch
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
candidates. The seniority of the petitioner was fixed only based on the
orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by an order,
dated 06.05.2015, dismissed the review petition (C)Nos.2872 to 2876 of
2014 filed by the individuals against the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Civil Appeal Nos.7668 to 7672 of 2014, dated 07.08.2014. In view of the
same, the present impugned endorsement, dated 26.06.2019, has been
passed by the second respondent, rejecting the review petition of the
petitioner. The impugned endorsement is valid and legal, which is passed in
consonance with the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court and prayed for
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused
the entire materials available on record.
11.From the above rival submissions and materials extracted above,
the following are the admitted facts:-
The respondents issued Notification in the year 1998 for
direct recruitment for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
mentioned number of posts in different ranges. The petitioner
participated in the selection process and obtained 75.68 marks.
The respondents fixed cut-off marks in range wise. In Madurai
range, cut-off mark was fixed as 78.50. The petitioner was not
selected, as he obtained only 75.68 marks. For Ramnad range,
cut-off mark for B.C candidate, was fixed at 65.18. The
candidates, who have obtained 65.18 and above were appointed
in Ramnad Range. The candidates, who have obtained more than
65.18 in other ranges were disqualified and who were not
selected, filed O.A.No.No.9825 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal. By an order, dated 19.07.2001, the
Tribunal allowed the said O.A and directed the respondents to
appoint the applicants therein. The respondents implemented
the order of the Tribunal. Some of the unsuccessful candidates
filed O.A before the Tribunal and Writ Petitions before the
Principal Bench of this Court seeking similar relief. The petitioner
and others also filed O.A.No.207 of 2004, after three years of
the order of the Tribunal. The respondents also filed Writ Appeal,
challenging the order of the Tribunal, in O.A.No.9825 of 1998,
dated 19.07.2001. All the O.As' pending before the Tribunal were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
transferred to the Principal Bench of this Court and all the
matters were taken up together along with the Writ Petitions
pending before the Principal Bench of this Court. The Division
Bench of this Court held that as far as Original Applications and
Writ Petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates are concerned,
the Division Bench granted the relief of appointment only those
candidates, who have approached within one year from the date
of order of the Tribunal, viz., 19.07.2001. The claim of the
others, including the petitioner, were rejected on the ground of
delay and laches by Judgment, dated 25.02.2004. The petitioner
filed S.L.P(C)No.21828 of 2006 and 10 other similarly placed
persons have also filed S.L.Ps. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by an
order, dated 07.08.2014, disposed of all the S.L.Ps', directing the
respondents to appoint the petitioner and others as Sub-
Inspector of Police and fix the seniority below all the regularly
selected Sub-Inspector of Police, as on that date.
Now, the petitioner is seeking fixation of his seniority similarly on par with
his batch mates of the year 1997-98.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
12.To decide this issue, it is relevant to refer the portion of the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7667 of 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.21828 of 2006], dated 07.08.2014, with regard to
the seniority. The said portion of the Judgment reads as follows:-
“During the course of hearing, a serious issue arose as to
whether the above mentioned 11 persons, should be granted
seniority with effect from the same date persons originally
selected against the posts of Sub-Inspector (through the
selection process for the years 1997-98] were appointed.
Learned counsel for the above mentioned 11 appellants very
fairly state, that they would have no objection if the
appointment of these 11 appellants, were ordered to be made
with immediate effect, in that, they would be extended the
benefit of seniority at the bottom of the regularly appointed Sub-
Inspectors as of today. Ordered accordingly.”
From the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the
issue whether fixing seniority of the petitioner on par with their batch mates
of 1997-98 was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and others consented for appointing the petitioner and
others as Sub-Inspector of Police and placing them in the seniority list at the
bottom of the regularly appointed Sub-Inspectors as on the date of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court recording the said
consent and ordered accordingly.
13.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner now submitted
that the said consent was given without the knowledge of the petitioner. At
this stage, it is pertinent to note that some of the candidates filed Review
Petition (C)Nos.2872 to 2876 of 2014, to review the order fixing the
seniority at the bottom of the Sub-Inspector of Police as on that date. The
said review petition was dismissed on 06.05.2015, confirming the order,
dated 07.08.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos.7668 to 7672 of 2014, placing the
petitioner and others at the bottom of the seniority list of regularly selected
Sub-Inspector of Police as on the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
14.In view of this fact, it is not open to the petitioner now to contend
that consent was given before the Hon'ble Apex Court without his
knowledge and therefore, the same is not binding on him. The petitioner, in
fact, is seeking to set aside the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court for fixing his
seniority. The order of the Hon'ble Apex Court is binding on all the High
Courts and Subordinate Courts. This Court has no power or competent to
overrule the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court and direct the respondents to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
fix the seniority of the petitioner on par with his batch mates. It is pertinent
to note that one V.Jeyabalan, similarly placed like the petitioner, gave a
representation, dated 25.04.2016 and the said representation was rejected
by the respondents on the same day, when the petitioner's representation
was also rejected on 31.08.2016. This Court, by an order, dated
03.01.2017, referring to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
Nos.7668 to 7672 of 2014, dated 07.08.2014, dismissed the Writ Petition
filed by the said V.Jeyabalan. The petitioner also filed W.P(MD)No.19544 of
2016, challenging the order, dated 31.08.2016 and also filed a review
petition before the second respondent to review the order of rejection,
dated 31.08.2016. When the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner restricted the claim of the
petitioner to dispose of the review petition in the said Writ Petition and by
an order, dated 05.10.2018, the said Writ Petition was disposed of, directing
the respondents to dispose of the review petition within a period of two
months.
15.In view of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court fixing the seniority
of the petitioner and others at the bottom of the regularly appointed Sub-
Inspectors as on the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, viz., 07.08.2014 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
dismissal of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.44805 of 2016, filed by one
V.Jeyabalan, for the very same relief, there is no error in the impugned
endorsement of the second respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition filed by the
petitioner is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
16.In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ps
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
To
1.The Secretary,
Home (Police V) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai.
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services,
Recruitment Board,
No.4, 9th Cross Street,
Indira Nagar,
Adayar, Chennai – 20.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption City-II Detachment,
No.6, First Canal Cross Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Adayar,
Chennai.
W.P(MD)No.20599 of 2019
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
