Madras High Court

R.Karthik vs The Director General Of Police on 22 March, 2022

                                                               W.P.(MD) No.18830 of 2020


                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 22.03.2022

                                                     CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM


                                             W.P.(MD) No.18830 of 2020


                 R.Karthik                                                    ... Petitioner
                                                        vs.


                 1.The Director General of Police
                   Mylapore

                 2.The Superintendent of Police
                   Ramanathapuram

                 3.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
                   rep.by its Member Secretary
                   Egmore, Chennai-600 008                                    ... Respondents


                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

                 issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to give another

                 chance for Rope Climbing in physical examination selection for Sub- Inspector

                 of Police (Taluk AR and TSP) (Men and Transgender) 2019 within the period

                 stipulated by this Court.




                 _______________
                 Page 1 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                      W.P.(MD) No.18830 of 2020


                           For Petitioner       : Mr.S.Balasubramanian
                           For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
                                             Additional Advocate General
                                             assisted by Mr.A.K.Manikkam
                                             Special Government Pleader


                                                         ORDER

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the third

respondent to give another chance to the petitioner for rope climbing in

physical examination selection for Sub- Inspector of Police.

2. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board issued

a notification for direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police

(Taluk Armed Reserve and Tamilnadu Special Police) (Men, Women and

Transgender)-2019, on 08.03.2019. The petitioner submitted application and

participated in the selection process. The petitioner was successful in the

written examination and allowed to participate in the physical verification test

and endurance test, however, he failed in the rope climbing.

3. A question arises whether High Court can interfere with the

selection process, more specifically regarding rope climbing.

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18830 of 2020

4. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is to ensure the process during which a decision is taken

in consonance with the rules in force, but not the decision itself.

5. Regarding the scope of judicial review in the matter of selection,

the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh formulated questions of laws in respect of

such selections in the case of Ashutosh Pawar vs. High Court of Madhya

Pradesh and others, reported in 2018 (1) CTC 353 and question Nos.2 and

3 are relevant, which are extracted hereunder:

“2. Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can step into the shoes of the Appointing Authority and determine as to whether the person concerned is fit for appointment or whether the High Court on finding that the Authority concerned has wrongly exercised its discretion in holding the candidate to be ineligible should, after quashing the order, remit the matter back to the authority concerned for reconsideration or for fresh consideration as to the eligibility of the person?

3. Whether the High Court while allowing such a petition in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18830 of 2020

further direction to the authority to appoint the person concerned on the post from the date his batchmates were appointed and to grant him back dated seniority and all other benefits or whether the High Court should simply remit the matter back to the authority for taking a decision in this regard?”

6. The Full Bench further considered the scope of judicial review

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Courts.

7. In the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v.

Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141, 154], Lord Brightman said that judicial review,

as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the

manner in which the decision was made. Judicial review is concerned, not

with the decision, but with the decision-making process. Unless that

restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will in my view,

under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping

power.

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18830 of 2020

8. In the same case, Lord Hailsham commented on the purpose of

the remedy by way of judicial review under RSC, Ord. 53 that this remedy,

vastly increased in extent, and rendered, over a long period in recent years, of

infinitely more convenient access than that provided by the old prerogative

writs and actions for a declaration, is intended to protect the individual

against the abuse of power by a wide range of authorities, judicial, quasi-

judicial, and, as would originally have been thought when I first practiced at

the Bar, administrative. It is not intended to take away from those authorities

the powers and discretions properly vested in them by law and to substitute

the courts as the bodies making the decisions. It is intended to see that the

relevant authorities use their powers in a proper manner.

9. In R. v. Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, exp Datafin plc

(1987) 1 All ER 564, Sir John Donaldson, M.R. Commented that an

application for judicial review is not an appeal.

10. In Lonrho plc v. Secretary of State for Trade and

Industry [(1989) 2 All ER 609] Lord Keith said that judicial review is a

protection and not a weapon. It is thus different from an appeal. When

hearing an appeal the Court is concerned with the merits of the decision

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18830 of 2020

under appeal.

11. In Amin v. Entry Clearance Officer [(1983) 2 All ER 864],

Re, Lord Fraser observed that judicial review is concerned not with the merits

of a decision but with the manner in which the decision was made…. Judicial

review is entirely different from an ordinary appeal. It is made effective by the

court quashing the administrative decision without substituting its own

decision, and is to be contrasted with an appeal where the appellate tribunal

substitutes its own decision on the merits for that of the administrative officer.

12. In R. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, exp in Guinness

plc [(1989) 1 All ER 509], Lord Donaldson, M.R. referred to the judicial

review jurisdiction as being supervisory or ‘longstop’ jurisdiction. Unless that

restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will, under the

guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power.

13. The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of

legality. It's concern should be:

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18830 of 2020

(i) Whether a decision-making authority exceeded

its powers?

(ii) Committed an error of law,

(iii) Committed a breach of the rules of natural

justice,

(iv) Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal

would have reached or,

(v) Abused its powers.

14. Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a

particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is

fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been

taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly

put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by

judicial review can be classified as under:

(i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must

understand correctly the law that regulates his

decision-making power and must give effect to it.

(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18830 of 2020

unreasonableness.

(iii) Procedural impropriety.

15. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

respondents drew the attention of this Court with reference to the Full Bench

Judgment of our High Court, dated 29.01.2020 in W.A.Nos.8 to 12 of 2020

etc., batch [A.Parthiban vs. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment

Board and another]. The reference made before the Full Bench was

answered as follows:

i. A Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for correcting any error may ordinarily be not maintainable involving factual disputes, but, on the establishment of a patent factual error leading to prejudice and resulting in violation of legal or fundamental rights or otherwise involving malafides, a writ petition can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in order to avoid or otherwise rectify a denial of opportunity in matters of employment;

ii. The exercise of height measurement may be resorted to through scientifically approved electronic or such other devices, such as Digital

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18830 of 2020

Measurement Device (Sensor Machine) and the same deserves to be undertaken at all stages of height measurement to establish a standardised procedure of measurement, in order to avoid any variation either in appeal or to avoid any future litigation;

iii. The Rules prescribing rounding off as amended and contained in Rule 14 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service being not under challenge, the same can be implemented, but, in order to ensure any dispute of calculation, miscalculation or any suspected marginal error, it would be appropriate that instead of rounding off principle, a relaxation to the extent of 0.5 centimeter in the respective categories be introduced as a matter of rule that may possibly avoid any future litigation or dispute relating to discrepancy of measurement.”

16. Even though the petitioner was successful in the written

examination and allowed to participate in the physical verification test and

endurance test, however, he failed in the rope climbing. Therefore, the request

of the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court.

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18830 of 2020

17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

22.03.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

krk

To:

1.The Director General of Police, Mylapore.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram.