High Court · 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:-29-6-2005Coram:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAMWrit Petition Nos. 7560 and 7561 of 1999Chandrasekara Pandian. .. Petitioner in W.P.No. 7560 of 1999.Easwaralingam. .. Petitioner in W.P.No. 7561 of 1999 Vs.1. The Secretary to Government, Home (Police Department), Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2. The Director General of police, Chennai.3. The Director General of Police and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, 4, 9th Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Chennai-20.4. The Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. .. Respondents in both W.Ps. Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to issue Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for proceedings of 4th respondent in O.A.No. 5591 of 1997dated 21-9-1998; and O.A.No. 5818 of 1997 dated 21-9-1998respectively, quash the same and consequently direct the respondentsto appoint the petitioners to the post of Sub Inspector of Police onthe basis of selection initiated pursuant to Notification dated 18-10-1995. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner in both W.Ps.: Mrs. S. Chitra Sampath. For respondents:-Mr. Suresh Viswanath, Government Advocates.COMMON ORDER(Order of Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,) Both petitioners, who are unsuccessful candidates tothe post of Sub Inspector of Police, challenge the order of TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal dated 21-9-1998 in these two writpetitions. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that theselection based on G.O.Ms.No. 1054-Home-Police III Department dated13-7-1995 and relaxation of Rule 14 of the Special Rules for TamilNadu Police Subordinate Services in G.O.No. 134 Home Departmentdated 31-1-97, in respect of selection of 66 candidates by relaxingtheir height is bad and illegal. In view of the limited issueraised, there is no need to refer all the factual details as statedin their respective affidavits. However, it is seen that both thepetitioners joined the service of the Police Department as Grade-IIPolice Constable on 15-9-1978 and was promoted as Grade-I PoliceConstable on 6-12-94. The Secretary to Government, Home (PoliceDepartment), Chennai-9/1st respondent herein, by its G.O.Ms.No. 1054dated 13-7-1995, announced reservation of 20 per cent posts in thequota of direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Policefrom the Head Constables/Police Constables in Grade-I and orderedrecruitment on the same lines as applicable to direct recruitmentwith the exemptions viz., medical test and police verification. Theacademic qualification was that the HC/PC should be graduates with 5years of service without any punishment. Besides this, the HC/PCmust also conform with the physical fitness, physical measurements,etc., provided under the rules for direct recruitment besides takingup written test and interview. The candidates who are qualifiedshould pass the physical verification test to be eligible forwritten test. The successful candidates in the written test shouldbe called for interview. 3. It is brought to our notice that based on therecommendation of the Director General of Police in order to fulfilthe aspirations of the personnel working as Grade I constables, whoare otherwise having required qualification, the Government inG.O.Ms.No. 134-Home-Pol.III Department dated 31-01-1997 had relaxedRule 14 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Services with regard to height requirement from 170 centimetres to168 centimetres for providing an opportunity of promotion to the 66departmental candidates (Head Constables and Police Constables)because for selection of the Police Constables, the minimum heightwas 168 centimetres only. Mrs. Chita Sampath, learned counselappearing for the petitioner in both cases, vehemently contendedthat the selection authority is not justified in relaxing the heightrequirement to certain percent namely from 170 c.m. to 168 c.m. andthis aspect was not properly considered by the Tribunal; henceprayed for intervention by this Court. 4. On going through the materials placed by thedepartment and the impugned order of the Tribunal, we are unableto accept the said contention. As a matter of fact, among othercontentions, the above contention was very much projected before theAdministrative Tribunal. In other words, the grievance of thepetitioners is that the Government had relaxed the heightrequirement from 170 c.m. to 168 c.m. in case of 66 selectedcandidates and it was mala fide and arbitrary. In the counteraffidavit, the Additional Director General Police and Member, TamilNadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai-2 has informedbefore the Tribunal as well as before this Court that this scheme ofdirect recruitment was introduced to provide an opportunity ofpromotion to the Police Constables who had necessary qualification,because, for selection of the Police Constables, the minimum heightwas 168 c.m. only. It was considered merely because of failure tofulfil the height requirement, otherwise the deserving departmentalcandidates should not be denied their chances. It is further seenthat taking note of the material aspect that G.O.Ms.No. 1054 Homedated 13-7-95 prescribes 20 per cent of open market vacancies of SubInspectors of Police for the serving police personnel and theminimum height that was prescribed for qualification to be appointedas Police Constable is 168 c.m. only. The Government have taken adecision to relax the said condition, namely, height requirementfrom 170 c.m. to 168 c.m. to all the eligible departmentalcandidates. The said yardstick was applied uniformly to all theconcerned candidates. The Tribunal, on analysing the same and afterconsidering the fact that inasmuch as the said decision was applieduniformly to all the eligible candidates, arrived a conclusion thatthe said decision was neither arbitrary nor mala fide and rejectedthe claim of the petitioners. We also perused the relevantGovernment Orders and all other materials, namely, marks,measurement, etc., and we are satisfied that the said yardstick wasapplied uniformly to all the concerned candidates and taking note ofthe fact that for selection of Police Constables, the minimum heightis 168 c.m., we concur with the conclusion arrived at by theTribunal and hold that the decision was neither arbitrary nor malafide as claimed by the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. It is also brought to our notice that the saidspecific relaxation applies to 66 individuals and the appointmentorders were issued only after obtaining relaxation. Inasmuch as theGovernment have power to relax any condition, we hold that the saidrelaxation would not amount to amendment to the Rules. On the otherhand, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, it is an exercise ofpower of relaxation. In such a circumstance, though Mrs. ChitraSampath relied on several decisions, we are not inclined to referthe same, since they are not applicable to the facts of these cases.The only objection raised in regard to lowering the heightrequirement in respect of 66 candidates is liable to be rejected.We are also satisfied that as far as norms for selection of PoliceConstables is concerned, the minimum height requirement is 168 c.m.only and as such, the Government for providing an opportunity ofpromotion to the Police Constables, who had necessary qualification,have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No. 134 dated 31-01-1997, relaxing theheight norms in favour of 66 candidates. As rightly contended bythe learned Government Advocate, the petitioners cannot question theorders of the Government, which was passed within their powers andsubsequently the Government have amended the relevant rules in thisregard. Accordingly, we hold that the selection of 66 candidates byrelaxing the height norm is neither bad nor illegal as claimed. Itis also relevant to note that in the said Government Order, theGovernment have specifically ordered that all the prescribed normsand procedures for the direct recruitment would be followed exceptfor age relaxation. In the counter affidavit the AdditionalDirector General of Police and Member of Tamil Nadu UniformedServices Recruitment Board, Chennai-2 has categorically stated thatall rules relating to reservation had strictly been followed. Itis also brought to our notice that the petitioners have securedlesser mark than the cut-off marks for Backward Class communitycandidates and on this ground also they cannot claim selection anddispute the selection of other candidates. 6. In the light of what is stated above, we do notfind any merit in these writ petitions; consequently both the writpetitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:-1. The Secretary to Government, Home (Police Department), Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2. The Director General of police, Chennai.3. The Director General of Police and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, 4, 9th Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Chennai-20.4. The Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.+ 2 ccs to Mrs. S.Chitra Sampath, Advocate SR 26650 & 26651+ 1 cc to Government Pleader SR 26812TEJ(CO)SR/5.7.2005 Common Order in W.P.Nos. 7560 & 7561/99