Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs T.P. Thiyagarajan on 6 September, 2021
W.A. No. 1657 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR .JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A. No. 1657 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No.10462 of 2021
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Mylapore,
Chennai 4.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
EVK Sampath Salai,
Vepery, Chennai – 600007. ..Appellants
Vs.
T.P. Thiyagarajan ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 20.08.2019 passed in
W.P. No. 18315 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1\6
W.A. No. 1657 of 2021
For Appellants :: Mr.K.V. Sajeev Kumar
Govt.Counsel
For Respondent :: Mr.S. Baskaran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
The present writ appeal has been preferred challenging the order
dated 20.08.2019 passed in W.P. No. 18315 of 2018.
2. The respondent filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the
2nd appellant herein to promote him in the light of the direction of Division
Bench in W.P.No. 25043 of 2002 on par with similarly placed persons.
Though it was contended on behalf of the appellants/respondents therein
that the direction of the Division Bench in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002 is
enforceable only in respect of those individuals, who were covered under
those cases and that a proposal has been sent to the Governent requesting
orders to amend the existing rule regarding maintenance of common
seniority for the Police Personnel of Armed Reserve and Motor Transport
Wing and till such orders are passed, the respondent/writ petitioner cannot
stake any claim for parity in treatment on behalf of the Police Personnel
from General Line, the learned Single Judge negatived the said contention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2\6
W.A. No. 1657 of 2021
holding that when identically placed Police Personnel have been given the
relief by the Division Bench of this Court to fix their seniority taking into
consideration the date of recruitment, the same criteria have to be adopted
in the case of the respondent/writ petitioner as well and promotion to be
effected. Holding thus, the writ petition came to be allowed with a
consequential direction to the appellants/respondents therein to grant the
benefit of promotion to the next higher posts to the respondent/writ
petitioner on the basis of date of recruitment as Grade II Police Constable
on par with similarly placed Police Personnel, who were covered under the
earlier direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court dated
18.09.2007 in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002. Assailing the said order, the
present writ appeal has been filed.
3. The primary contention putforth by the appellants is that the
respondent, who was appointed in Armed Reserve as Grade II Police
Constable, was transferred to Local Police, on his own volition, in the year
1998. On completion of service in Taluk Police for more than 3 years, his
lien in the Armed Reserve is deemed to have been terminated under Rule 14
of the Fundamental Rules. Further, according to the appellants, once a
person is transferred from one wing to another wing, at request, the said
person will lose his seniority and he will be placed at the bottommost
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3\6
W.A. No. 1657 of 2021
seniority in the new wing and thereafter, he will have to claim promotion to
the next higher post based on the seniority existing in the new place of
joining. The appellants would also contend that the respondent cannot claim
seniority on par with his juniors who opted to remain in the Armed Reserve
and got promotions for vacancies that arose in Armed Reserve. Further, if
the prayer of the respondent is accepted, it will affect the seniority of
eligible candidates, who opted to remain in Armed Reserve and create
disparity. Besides, when the respondent has been bestowed with
promotions upto the rank of Special Sub Inspector of Police as per his
seniority in Taluk Police, his grievance is not well-founded. Hence, the
appellants would submit that learned Single Judge was wrong in giving a
direction to grant the benefit of promotion to the next higher post to the
respondent/writ petitioner on the basis of his date of recruitment within a
period of four months.
4. We are unable to accept the stand taken by the appellants. The
contention of the appellants that a proposal has been sent to the Governent
requesting orders to amend the existing rule regarding maintenance of
common seniority for the Police Personnel of Armed Reserve and Motor
Transport Wing and till such orders are passed, the respondent/writ
petitioner cannot stake any claim for parity in treatment on behalf of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4\6
W.A. No. 1657 of 2021
Police Personnel from General Line, was not accepted by the learned Single
Judge. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that when identically
placed police personnel have approached this Court and when the Division
Bench has granted the relief of promotion taking into consideration the date
of recruitment, the same criteria needs to be adopted in respect of the
petitioner as well and promotion to be effected. The learned Single Judge,
based on the pleading, came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner along
with others, either in General Line or in the Armed Force were recruited
through common exercise and posted in various wings like Motor Transport
Wing, Armed Reserve and General Line, etc. That being the admitted
position, the learned Single Judge was unable to countenance the stand of
the appellants that the promotion would depend upon the wing in which the
respondent was posted and working. Besides, the learned Single Judge
observed that giving promotion to the juniors of the writ petitioner in other
wings and denying the same to the respondent/writ petitioner will be
discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable apart from being irrational and
denying equity clause enshrined in the Constitution of India.
5. Further, based on the earlier orders passed by this Court in
different cases, the Government has also passed G.Os and implemented the
same. Though it has been stated that there are chances of getting quick
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5\6
W.A. No. 1657 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
nv
promotions in Armed Reserve when compared to other wings, this Court
cannot go into those aspects in the present writ appeal as the scope in the
writ appeal is very limited and we cannot enlarge the scope of the relief
sought in the writ petition in the writ appeal. It is needless to mention that
it is open to the appellants herein to initiate steps to amend or to frame
appropriate rules for having common seniority to avoid anomaly if there are
no legal impediments. However, as things stand as on date, the writ
petitioner will have to get the benefit of the order of the learned Single
Judge as we see no reason to differ from the conclusions arrived at by
learned Single Judge. Hence, finding no merits in the writ appeal, the same
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J.)
nv 06.09.2021
W.A. No. 1657 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6\6
