Madras High Court
S.Shri Raja Priya Dharshini vs The Member Secretary on 22 March, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.19221 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.19221 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.16056, 16057 & 16059 of 2020
S.Shri Raja Priya Dharshini ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008
2.The Chairman / Sub-Committee
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file
of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned Disqualification slip of
Annexure-9 issued vide his proceedings in C.No.R2/860/2019 dated
28.10.2020 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently
direct the respondent to provide the petitioner one more opportunity to
_______________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19221 of 2020
complete 200 mtrs running on a dry land/well maintained track and permit
the petitioner to participate in Viva-Voce for selection to the post of Sub
Inspector of Police (Taluk/Armed Reserve) for the year 2019 under the
Schedule Caste (Women) category within the time limit stipulated by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.AL.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The disqualification slip, dated 28.10.2020, issued by the
respondents, in connection with the direct recruitment to the post of Sub
Inspector of Police, is under challenge in this writ petition.
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
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19221 of 2020
written examination and allowed to participate in the physical verification test
and endurance test.
3. However, she failed in 200 Meters running event as she crossed
200 Meters in 39.14 Seconds, which is higher than the required time limit
contemplated by the Selection Committee.
4. A question arises whether High Court can interfere with the
selection process, more specifically regarding calculation of time done by the
Authorities Competent.
5. 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.
6. 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:
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19221 of 2020
“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 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?”
7. The Full Bench further considered the scope of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Courts.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19221 of 2020
8. 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.
9. 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.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19221 of 2020
10. 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.
11. 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
under appeal.
12. 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.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19221 of 2020
13. 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.
14. The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of
legality. It's concern should be:
(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.
15. 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
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19221 of 2020
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
unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.
16. 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
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19221 of 2020
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
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.”
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19221 of 2020
17. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2.The Chairman / Sub-Committee,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19221 of 2020
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.19221 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.16056, 16057 & 16059
of 2020
22.03.2022
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
