Madras High Court
Jeeva Saran vs The Director General Of Police on 8 September, 2022
W.P(MD)No.11780 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.11780 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD)No.8371 of 2022
Jeeva Saran ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director General of Police,
Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the
petitioner as Grade - II Police Constable (Tamil Nadu Special Police) in view of
the selection made by notification dated 17.09.2020 by the second respondent
within the period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mrs.J.Saranya
For Mr.N.Sathish Babu
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P(MD)No.11780 of 2022
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the
learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The writ petitioner applied in response to the notification issued by the
second respondent on 17.09.2020 calling for applications for the common
recruitment for the post of Grade II Police Constable (Men, Women &
Transgender) for Armed Reserve & Tamil Nadu Special Police, Grade – II Jail
Warden (Men and Women) and Fireman for the year 2020. The petitioner
secured 50.50 marks. However, he was not selected. Aggrieved by the same,
this writ petition came to be filed.
3. The stand of the writ petitioner is that persons who got lower marks
compared to him, had been appointed as Grade II Police Constable in Tamil
Nadu Special Police. In normal circumstances, this Court would have definitely
held in favour of the writ petitioner by holding that when persons who are
otherwise similarly placed but got lower marks had been appointed, the
petitioner could not have been denied appointment.
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, in
the application form, the petitioner had indicated that he would prefer to join
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11780 of 2022
only Armed Reserve and Fireman post. In other words, he had no preference
for joining Grade II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Special Police.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on the
decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 22.01.2016 made in
W.A(MD)No.200 of 2014 (The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission &
other Vs V.Venkateswaran). The Hon'ble First Bench had held that the
omission to indicate preference was obviously a technical lapse on the part of
the candidate and therefore, he cannot be denied appointment even in the non-
preferred category.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that this decision
may not be applicable primarily because in the said case, the appointment was
in respect of five central Police Organizations and the clause relating to
preference was worded differently. Clause 22 of the notification that was the
subject matter of the writ appeal read as follows:
“5. The relevant clause 22 and the note under that clause, reads
as follows:
22. PREFERENCE(S):
A candidate must indicate at Sl.No.18 in the Application Form,
the preference of Organisations/Service for which he/she would
like to be considered for appointment in the order of preference
in case he/she is recommended for appointment by Staff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11780 of 2022
Selection Commission. Note: The candidate is advised to be very
careful particularly about various standards laid down by
various Police Organisations for determining their
eligibility/considerations while indicating the order of
preferences for appointment as Sub-Inspector in various
Organisations. The candidate is also advised to indicate all the
Organisations in the order of preference in his/her application
form. In case he/she does not indicate any of services/posts, it
will be assumed that he/she does not want to be considered for
those services and the Commission will have the discretion to
allocate such candidates to any Cadre/Organisation as per the
availability of vacancies, without corresponding with the
candidates. Allocation of services to the candidates selected
would be made strictly, keeping in view their position in merit
and the order of preference for various services.”
7. But in the case on hand, it is categorically stated that if a candidate
expressed his preference only for one post and did not indicate his preference
for the other post, the petitioner would forfeit the chance of getting selected for
the other post. Though the learned Additional Advocate General has
succeeded in distinguishing the aforesaid decision on facts, he also submitted
that the issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. He drew my
attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil
Appeal Nos.4586 & 4587 of 2018 dated 17.02.2022 in which it had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11780 of 2022
categorically held that the High Court should not dilute the significance of
preferences given by the candidate and that instructions contained in the
recruitment notification should not be nullified. I am more than satisfied that in
view of the aforesaid recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
petitioner's case will have to be negatived.
8. This writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
08.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11780 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
mga
W.P.(MD)No.11780 of 2022
08.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
