High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 12.12.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARANWRIT APPEAL NO.64 OF 2007andM.P.NOs.1 & 2 OF 20071. The Inspector General of Police, (Technical Services), Police Telecommunication, Chennai 4.2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Technical Services), Police Telecommunication, Chennai 4... AppellantsVs.1. A. Malaichamy2. K. Nedumaran3. K. Mokkaisamy4. S. Selvaraj5. S. Ramasamy6. R. Arumugam7. M. Markendeyan8. K. Periasamy9. P. Davidson10. K. Selvaraj11. T. Dharmaraj12. M. Muruganandham13. T. Manickam14. V. Gunasekaran15. S. Govindaraj16. S. Ravanan17. S. Panneerselvam18. R. Mariapan19. D. Maharajan20. G. Anbalagan21. S. Muthusamy22. B. Subbiah https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. J. Raja Singh24. J. Rodricks25. G. Balaraman26. S. KaruppiahRespondents 13 to 26impleaded as party respondentsvide order of court dated30.10.2007 made in M.P.3/2007 .. Respondents Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orderof the learned single Judge in W.P.No.6966 of 2006 dated 9.10.2006.This original Application No.2507 of 1999 converted as writ petitionNo.6966 of 2006, to call for the records of the first Respondent dated22.3.1999 made in his proceedings RC.No.A2/24/90/95-D.O.184/99 and quashthe same.For Appellants: Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal Government AdvocateFor Respondent-4: Mr.A.S. KaizerRespondents 13 to 26: Mr.N.G.R. Prasad for M/s. Row & Reddy JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.K. MISRA, J)Heard Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate, forAppellants, Mr.A.S. Kaizer for Respondent No.4 and Mr.N.G.R. Prasad forRespondents 13 to 26.2. Even though the matter was listed for considering thequestion of issuance of direction, on the consent of the counselsappearing, the appeal itself has been taken up for disposal as the samequestion is involved while considering the appeal.3. The present Respondent Nos.1 to 5 had filed O.A.No.2507 of1999 before the State Administrative Tribunal wherein they had prayed forquashing the order of the Inspector General of Police and for fixing theirseniority. Subsequently, the said Original Application was transferred tothe High Court on abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal andrenumbered as W.P.No.6966 of 2006. The contention of the presentRespondents 1 to 5, who are the applicants before the Tribunal, was to theeffect that those applicants along with several others were transferred toPolice Radio Branch, in short PRB, by a common order dated 2.12.1978.However, while 21 persons were relieved immediately and were able to join https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PRB, other persons including the present Respondents 1 to 5 were notrelieved immediately due to administrative exigencies and, therefore, theywere able to join between 1980 and 1981. It was further stated thatbefore those ten persons could join PRB., another batch of Grade II PoliceConstables had been transferred and had been relieved immediately and theyjoined before the date of joining of these applicants. It was furthercontended that since they were prevented from joining immediately due toadministrative exigencies, their seniority should be considered at parwith 21 persons, who had been transferred earlier along with theseapplicants and had joined earlier. It was further stated in the OriginalApplication that cause of action for filing the Original Application aroseon account of the fact that the representation, which was allowed by theDeputy Inspector General of Police on 21.10.1998, was reversed by theInspector General by order dated 22.3.1999. 4. Before the Tribunal, a counter was filed on behalf of theGovernment wherein it was indicated that seniority in PRB, which wasconsidered as a separate Unit as per G.O.Ms.No.1448, Home Department,dated 13.6.19174, is to be computed from the date of joining in such Unit.It was further indicated that in fact the persons transferred had beensubsequently promoted from Grade II to Grade I and from Grade I to therank of Head Constable and the question of seniority in the post of GradeII Constable was raised after a long gap of time. The Government had alsotaken a plea of non-joinder of parties.5. Learned single Judge while considering the fact that theapplicants before the Tribunal (writ petitioners) who had been transferredalong with several others, could not join immediately in PRB only becauseof the fact that they were not relieved by the Department, directed thattheir seniority should be reckoned along with other persons who had beenselected on the basis of the order dated 2.12.1978.6. The Government Advocate representing the appellants, on theother hand, submitted that whatever might have been the position in 1978,seniority should be counted on the date of joining in accordance with theRules and Regulations and moreover the persons had already been promotedfrom Grade II to Grade I and from Grade I to Head Constable on the basisof such seniority, which should not be disturbed after a long lapse oftime. The question of non-joinder is also raised by him.7. Several persons who were transferred after the applicants buthad joined earlier have been impleaded as Respondents 13 to 26. Theseimpleaded respondents were treated as senior to the applicants. However,neither in the Original Application nor the transferred Writ Petition theywere impleaded. Such matter could not have been taken up withoutimpleading the persons who are likely to be affected by changingseniority. These impleaded persons have raised the question of laches. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 1 to5 has submitted that as a matter of fact the applicants were aggrieved bythe order passed by the Inspector General of Police and moreover suchother persons were about 116 in number and therefore it was impossible forthem to implead those persons. It is further submitted that the presentpetitioners were making representations and therefore it cannot be saidthat there was any laches. It is also contended that the cause of actionfor filing the Original Application arose in 1999, when the InspectorGeneral of Police reversed the order passed by the Deputy InspectorGeneral of Police.9. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the contentionsraised by the counsels appearing for all the parties. If the seniority ofthe applicants in the cadre of Grade II Constable would have been the onlyquestion, may be the order of the learned single Judge can be treated asjustified, inasmuch as the applicants, even though transferred along withseveral others were relieved after lapse of some time for reasons notwithin their control. But, at the present stage, we are not onlyconcerned merely with the question of seniority in the post of Grade IIconstable, but also with the question of seniority in and promotion toother higher post. It is apparent from the materials on record that in1982 several persons were promoted from Grade II to Grade I Constable. Insuch common order of promotion, the present applicants were shown belowseveral others and from such order, it is apparent that at least fromthe date of such order, the applicants should have been deemed to haveknown that the persons impleaded were treated as senior to suchapplicants. Their cause of action had thus arisen in the year 1982.Similarly, subsequently, there had been promotion from Grade I Constableto Head Constable, wherein again, those other persons were shown to besenior. In such a background, obviously it would be unjust to rake up theissue of seniority in the post of Grade II Constable in PRB. Therefore,we are inclined to accept the contention of the Counsels appearing for theState as well as the impleaded respondents that the writ petition wasliable to be rejected on the ground of laches, as by such writ petition,the things which had become settled long before, were sought to be re-opened. 10. Apart from the aforesaid consideration, we also find that inthe absence of the persons whose seniority is to be likely affected, thewrit petition could not have been decided in favour of the applicants 1 to5. It is no doubt true that the persons likely to be affected are more innumber but that cannot be an excuse for impleading those persons. Ifnumerous persons are to be impleaded, the respondents 1 to 5 should havetaken recourse to prcedure similar to Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. On this groundalso, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. The aforesaid conclusions are supported to a very greatextent by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1991 Suppl(2) SCC183 (GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS v. M.A. KAREEM AND OTHERS),wherein it was observed :"9. Besides the above infirmities there are two otherimportant considerations which weigh heavily against therespondents. The petition before the Tribunal was filed by therespondents after a period of 13 years of their initialappointment in the Chief Office, during which period many ordersconsistent with the terms of service as indicated in theMemorandum Annexure 'A' must have been passed in favour of theother incumbents of the service. The courts and tribunalsshould be slow in disturbing the settled affairs in a servicefor such a long period. Besides, the respondents, in theapplication before the Tribunal, did not implead theircolleagues who have been prejudicially affected by the impugnedjudgment. It cannot be assumed that the respondents had noknowledge about them. As was rightly pointed out by Mr.Sitaramiah, although in paragraph 4(d) of their applicationbefore the Tribunal (page 53 of the paper book) the respondentsmentioned one Vijaya Chand alleged to be an officiating LDC whowas put over the, they did not implead even him. We are,therefore, of the view that apart from the merits of the case,the petition of the respondents before the Tribunal was fit tobe rejected on the ground of the abovementioned last twopoints."12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to uphold thedecision of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is accordinglyallowed and the writ petition is rejected. No costs.dpkSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To,1. The Inspector of Police, (Technical Services), Police Telecommunication, Chennai 4.2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Technical Services), Police Telecommunication, Chennai 4.+1 cc to Mr.K.S.Kaizer, Advocate Sr.No.73884.+1 cc to M/s.Row & Reddy, Advocate Sr.No.73699.+1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No.74024.VRK(CO)DCP/10.1 WA.NO.64/2007