Madras High Court
K.Hariharan vs The Tamil Nadu Uniform Service on 13 July, 2021
W.A.No.3978 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.3978 of 2019
K.Hariharan .. Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Tamil Nadu Uniform Service
Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
2. The Director General of Police/Director,
Fire & Rescue Services,
No.17, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act
against the final order dated 19.03.2019 made in W.P.No.28122 of
2018.
***
For Appellant : Mr.V.Neethidurai
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash,
State Government Counsel
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3978 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
This is an intra-Court appeal filed against the order passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28122 of 2019 dated
19.03.2019.
2. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, in response to
the notification issued by the respondents, he applied and exercised
option for the post of Fireman alone. His father was a retired Station
Officer of the Fire and Rescue Department, and he is entitled for
10% wards quota. He secured 73 marks out of 100 marks in the
selection process. He was not selected for the post of Fireman.
Since he was eligible for the other two posts also, i.e, Grade II
Police Constable (AR) and Grade II Jail Wardens, he submitted a
representation dated 14.10.2018. He instituted W.P.No.28122 of
2018 seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider his case
under 10% reservation meant for wards/dependents of the
Department or in the alternative to confer the post of Grade II
Constable (AR) as per the marks secured by him irrespective of the
order of preference made in the application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3978 of 2019
3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties
dismissed the writ petition, questioning which, the appellant/writ
petitioner is before us.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in
view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.(MD)No.1241 of 2017 dated 13.02.2018 and the Review
Application filed against the said order, based on the liberty granted
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Review Appln.No.192 of 2018 and
the order passed therein on 30.01.2019, the appellant did not insist
the prayer for 10% quota, but sought the second limb of the prayer,
which was not considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that since the persons secured
less marks than that of the writ petitioner got selected for the post
of Grade II Police Constable, he may be considered for appointment
to the said post, though he only exercised the option for Fireman.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Counsel appearing
for the respondents would submit that if a candidate exercised only
one option and could not be selected for the said category, in terms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3978 of 2019
of G.O.Ms.No.968, dated 03.10.2001, he will lose the opportunity of
appointment, though he is eligible for other posts as per his merit.
It is his submission that had the writ petitioner / appellant been
exercised the other options, he would have been considered for any
one of those two posts, as per his merit. Having failed to exercise
the other two options, now the petitioner cannot seek indulgence
from this Court.
6. The facts are not controverted by either side. The writ
petitioner himself categorically admitted that he had applied for the
post of Fireman. But his only defence is that the Division Bench
judgment of this Court quashing the 10% quota meant for wards/
dependents of the personnel of the Department cannot be given
retrospective effect and his plea for selection for the other two
posts, for which, he did not exercise option may be considered
sympathetically.
7. The learned Single Judge after adverting to the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1241 of
2017 dated 13.02.2018, the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in
Review Appln.No.192 of 2018, G.O.Ms.No.968, dated 03.10.2001
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3978 of 2019
and the rules position, rejected the prayer of the petitioner. In fact,
the learned Single Judge also made a comparison between the
application of the writ petitioner and one candidate by name
M.Suresh Kumar to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion that only if the
candidates exercised the available options, they are entitled to be
considered for the next post in the order of merit.
8. When the order of the learned Single Judge is in tune
with the judgments of this Court and also in consonance with the
rules, we do not find any infirmity in the said order and there is no
merit in the appeal. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed as
devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
13.07.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
gg
To
1. The Tamil Nadu Uniform Service
Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
2. The Director General of Police/Director,
Fire & Rescue Services,
No.17, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3978 of 2019
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
W.A.No.3978 of 2019
13.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
