Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.24643 of 2021 dated 23.04.2024.For Appellant : Mr.S.Janarthanam for Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan For Respondents:Mr.Balan Haridas - R1 & R2Mr.MA.Gouthaman &Mr.R.Krishna Kumar - R3No Appearance - R4 to R7Mr.P.KumaresanAdditional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.Yashwanth Additional Government Pleader - R8 & R9W.A.No.1774 of 2024G.Muthu Manickam... Appellantversus1.P.Stephen2.The Secretary to Government, Home (Police II) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.3.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 4....RespondentsPrayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.22959 of 2018 dated 23.04.2024.For Appellant : Mr.S.Janarthanamfor Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan For Respondents:Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan - R1Mr.P.KumaresanAdditional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.Yashwanth 2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024Additional Government Pleader - R2 & R3C O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)These two intra-court appeals are filed challenging the common order dated 23.04.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.22959 of 2018 and 24643 of 2021, whereby the impugned orders in the writ petitions transferring the appellant from Deputy Superintendent of Police (category-2) to Deputy Superintendent of Police (category-1) and the further promotion granted was set aside.The short facts to be noted in these appeals are as follows:-2.Originally, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board had issued notification on 01.01.1994 inviting applications for direct recruitment of 500 posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Men) in the Tamil Nadu Police Force. While the recruitment was almost completed, a few in-service candidates in the cadre of constables had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1368 of 1994 and others on the ground that the in-service candidates also ought to be allowed to participate in the selection. The applications came to be disposed of on 18.01.1995 and without disturbing the notification dated 01.01.1994 by 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024allowing the in-service candidates to be included in that notification, however, had directed for a separate special selection to be held for them, by prescribing 20% quota.3.While these issues were pending, the vacancies initially notified increased. The Government thereafter had issued two orders, one in G.O.(Ms.)No.1054 Home (Police III) Department dated 13.07.1995, by which the Government had directed that 20% of the vacancies in the direct recruitment be reserved for the in-service candidates i.e., Constables and Head Constables from the Armed Reserve, Taluk Police and Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion, for which the rules were sought to be amended. 4.By another order dated 01.08.1995, the direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police was increased from 500 to 1100 and a separate notification dated 18.10.1995 was also issued for 270 Sub-Inspectors of Police from among the in-service candidates against the 20% quota. As a result of which, the first batch of 500 candidates directly recruited was initially sent for training on 01.03.1996 and 267 in-service candidates recruited against the 20% quota in the second batch, along with the balance of 600 directly recruited candidates in the third batch, were sent for training on 02.06.1997. In all, 1100 candidates under direct recruitment 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024and 267 in-service candidates were recruited and joined in the service.5.There are 3 categories of service under the Tamil Nadu Police Force, viz., (i) the Taluk Police, (ii) the Armed Reserve and (iii) Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. The selection of the candidates and their seniority was based on the marks secured by them. As per the vacancies available, the candidates with higher marks first joined in the Taluk Police, followed by the service in the Armed Reserve and the candidates who had secured lesser marks, have joined in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. 6.In this selection, it is submitted that all the 500 Sub-Inspectors of Police directly recruited from the open market were meritorious and they have joined in the Taluk Police. Further, 270 in-service candidates recruited had also joined in the Taluk Police and out of the balance 600 directly recruited candidates from the open market, 354 have joined in the Armed Reserve and 151 persons have joined in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion.7.In fact, these 270 in-service candidates recruited wanted themselves to be placed as seniors to the 500 directly recruited candidates from the open market in the Taluk Police of first batch and in this regard, 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024they have filed writ petitions and in W.A.Nos.1599 and 1600 of 2014, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 11.03.2015 by observing that 500 candidates from the open market who were recruited and placed in the Taluk Police belong to the Notification issued on 01.01.1994 for which the selection process were completed and they were sent for training in the year 1996, whereas the in-service candidates got recruited later and were sent for training in the year 1997, had held that they cannot claim seniority over and above the directly recruited candidates in the open market. The Division Bench had also recorded that, the controversy is pending in respect of the seniority of these 270 in-service candidates and the other candidates out of 600 candidates, who got recruited from the open market and placed under the Taluk Police.8.From the above, it is evident that 500 directly recruited candidates from the open market who joined in the Taluk Police and 270 in-service candidates who got recruited and joined in the Taluk Police based on their order of merit are seniors to the directly recruited candidates who were only able to enter the services in the Armed Reserve category and the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. The private respondents in these appeals were all directly recruited candidates from the open market who secured higher marks and have joined in the Taluk Police, whereas the appellant 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024herein, due to the lesser marks secured, was able to join only in the Armed Reserve.9.The candidates placed under each service had their own hierarchy of promotion. The policeman in the Taluk Police, where the strength was large, had to wait to earn their promotion, but the candidates under the Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion, where the strength was lesser, had quicker chances for securing promotion.10.Admittedly, the appellant was promoted to the post of Inspector and thereafter to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Armed Reserve in category-2, whereas the private respondents had also later secured their promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Taluk Police in category-1.11.At this stage, the entire controversy arose in view of the appellant submitting a representation in seeking for a transfer of his service from category-2 to category-1 and based on the recommendations of the third respondent, the second respondent / Government had issued G.O.(Ms.)No.407 Home (Police-2) Department dated 05.06.2014 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024[hereinafter referred to as “G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014”] by exercising the power under Rule 48 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules granting relaxation under Rule 6(a) and Rule 10(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service. 12.The Government Order allowed the appellant to undergo the training for being transferred and subsequently the third respondent had also included the appellant in the panel for Assistant Superintendent of Police and they have promoted him to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Police in category-1 of Tamil Nadu Police Service.13.Assailing these proceedings, the private respondents have preferred two separate writ petitions, one challenging the G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 and the other challenging the inclusion in the panel and promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1 for the year 2020-2021. The writ court by taking note of the fact that G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 issued by the Government only enabled the appellant to undergo the training for considering his case for transfer from category-2 to category-1, but however, no such orders for actual transfer of category of the appellant had been issued as required under Rule 10-e which can only be issued by the Government, held that the subsequent 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024orders of the third respondent by granting promotion to the appellant as Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1 of the Tamil Nadu Police Service is not sustainable.14.The writ court also observed that when the Government can exercise the power under Rule 48 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules only under exceptional circumstances, to avoid undue hardship or exigencies of services, the power of relaxation has been exercised only on the ground that the appellant had worked as PSO to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and had rendered an outstanding service simply based on a representation submitted by the appellant. As such holding that the very exercise of power under Rule 48 was erroneous, the writ court had set aside the impugned orders and allowed the writ petitions. However, the writ court made it clear that the appellant shall be deemed to have been continued in the stream of Armed Reserve and will be entitled for all the benefits in the said stream. Assailing the impugned orders, the appellant has preferred the above two appeals.15.Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. G.Mohana Krishnan, appearing for the appellant contended that, the appellant is entitled to seek for a transfer of his service from category-2 to 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024category-1, which is permissible under Rule 10 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service. He further contended that his representation was considered and by proceedings dated 16.12.2013, he was recommended for conversion to category-1 based on his exemplary services in the Department and the Government being the competent authority, had issued G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 by exercising the power under Rule 48 and had relaxed Rule 6(a) and 10(a) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service, which enables the appellant to undergo the training.16.Learned counsel further contended that in view of the Government Order issued, the appellant had successfully completed the training period and based on which, he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1 on 01.05.2016 and later by G.O.(Ms.)No.129 Home (Police 1A) Department dated 26.02.2021, he was included in the panel for the post of Additional Superintendent of Police (category-1) in the year 2020-2021 and had also been promoted and posted as Additional Superintendent of Police.17.It is his further contention that it was the prerogative and within the domain of the State Government to exercise the power under Rule 48 for granting relaxation, which cannot be questioned by the private respondents and in fact the power has been exercised only considering the meritorious 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024service extended by the appellant. He further contended that when all these 1367 candidates belong to the same batch, there is no question of any separate seniority among them and the learned Judge erred in rendering a finding that the Government had exercised the power without any actual need or justification. When the power of relaxation was available with the Government, the learned Judge ought not to have gone into the question of justification when it is the domain of the state.18.He further submitted that when G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 itself has been issued only to enable the appellant to be transferred to category-1, the finding that no such order for transfer is issued is baseless, he contended and sought for indulgence of this Court.19.Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General for Mr.S.Yashwanth, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State supporting the stand of the appellant contended that only in view of the meritorious service, the Government had exercised the power under Rule 48 and granted relaxation of Rules 6(a) and 10(e) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service.20.Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that it 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024is for the Government to decide as to whether the meritorious services rendered by the candidates are eligible to be considered for transfer, particularly when the transfer of category is permitted under Rule 10 of the Special Rules.21.He further submitted that based on the Government Order issued, the appellant had completed all the training and based on which, he had also been posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1 and subsequently was also included in the panel and promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1 of Taluk Police and the belated challenge made by the private respondents is unsustainable.22.Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan appearing for the private respondents submitted that the appellant, who was less meritorious and was able to enter in the Armed Reserve, cannot steal a march over the private respondents who were meritorious and got placed in the Taluk Police. He further contended that when even 270 in-service candidates recruited were not able to secure seniority over and above these directly recruited private respondents, the appellant, by obtaining conversion to category-1, is to become senior to all these 770 and the other persons placed in the Taluk Police from out of 600.12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 202423.It is his further contention that merely because someone has prominence and is fortunate to serve as PSO to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, that will not entitle him to have a transfer of category and benefits at the cost of the private respondents and sought for dismissal of these appeals.24.Heard the arguments of the respective counsels and perused the materials available on record.25.The whole issue that arises in these appeals is as to whether the G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 issued by exercising the power under Rule 48 and granting relaxation of special rules is valid and sufficient for effecting transfer from category-2 (Armed Reserve) to category-1 (Taluk Police).26.Admittedly, the selection process for selecting the Sub-Inspectors of Police of the Tamil Nadu Police Force was initiated by issuance of the Notification on 01.01.1994 for 500 posts. Later, pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, 20% reservation was made for the in-service candidates out of the direct recruitment quota. In view of the subsequent increase in vacancies, separate orders were issued for the selection of 270 in-service candidates and further 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024600 candidates to be directly recruited from the open market, apart from the initial 500 posts for which the recruitment process itself was almost completed.27.It is not in dispute that the candidates were able to join in the different services based on the vacancies and marks secured by them in the selection process. The Tamil Nadu Police Force, contains 3 services, viz. the Taluk Police, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. The candidates who were meritorious joined the Taluk Police, followed by the Armed Reserve and other candidates to the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. 28.In the recruitments conducted, the private respondents were recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police from among the 500 candidates in the first batch and they had all joined in the Taluk Police in the year 1996 itself. Thereafter, 270 in-service candidates recruited had also joined in the Taluk Police and further as per vacancy some of the candidates from the third batch of 600 directly recruited candidates from the open market also joined in the Taluk Police. After which, 354 candidates had joined in the Armed Reserve and 151 candidates have joined in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 202429.When the private respondents were placed much seniors in the seniority list under the Taluk Police, the appellant stood at Serial No.89 in category-2 under the Armed Reserve. The appellant, being in the Armed Reserve had quick chances of promotion and he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police and thereafter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police as on 05.12.2012 under category-2. The private respondents had also been subsequently promoted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1.30.The appellant, while so, had made a representation on 20.11.2013 expressing his interest to work under Category-1 and therefore, he requested the Government to consider him for deputing for the training so as to enable him to become Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1, which was recommended by the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, Chennai. 31.The Director General of Police has forwarded the report to the Government on 11.03.2014 recommending for conversion. Based on which the Government has issued G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 by exercising the power under Rule 48 of General Rules for the Tamil Nadu 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024State and Subordinate Service Rules and thereby relaxing Rules 6(a) and 10(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service to enable the appellant to undergo the training.32.Rule 10(a) of the Special Rules for The Tamil Nadu Police Service deals with the conditions for transfer of members of the service from categories 2, 3 and 3A to category-1 under class-II. For easy reference, Rule 10(a) is extracted hereunder:-“10(a) No Deputy Superintendent of Police, category 2 shall, except in very special cases, be posted or transferred as Deputy Superintendent of Police, category-1, unless he-(i) possesses a good record of service;(ii) has completed the prescribed period of probation as Deputy Superintendent of Police category-2;(iii) has undergone a course of training in the Police Training College, Chennai for six months and a course of practical training for six months under, a Superintendent of Police; and (iv) has passed the tests in the subject mentioned in rule 6(a).”33.As per the above Rule, the transfer of the Deputy Superintendent of Police from category-1 to category-2 shall be allowed only in very special cases that too after the conditions contained therein are fulfilled. As per the conditions, the candidate must possess a good service record, must have completed probation as Deputy Superintendent of Police 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024in category-2, must have undergone the institutional and practical training for the period mentioned thereunder and had also passed the tests as contemplated under Rule 6(a). Even if all these conditions are fulfilled, still such transfer could be effected only in very special cases.34.Now as per G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 issued by the Government by exercising the power under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, they relaxed Rules 6(a) and 10(a) of the Special Rules and had allowed the appellant to undergo the training. The order refers to the recommendations made by the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence and states that the appellant had performed his duties in an outstanding manner and his dedicated and tireless efforts have drawn praise from all the senior officers and therefore deserves for conversion from category-2 to category-1. 35.Even though such an observation could satisfy the condition of possessing a good service record as per Rule 10(a)(i), no circumstances for treating it as a very special case for allowing conversion are stated in the order. It is not in dispute that the appellant who had the fortune of serving as PSO to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, had prominence with the higher officials and except for the same, as observed by the learned Judge, no special 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024circumstances or any special cases are recorded which necessitated or allowed the Government to allow the appellant to undergo the training for getting converted from category-2 to category-1.36.As per Rule 10(a)(ii), for considering a case for transfer, then the Deputy Superintendent of Police ought to have completed his probation. Admittedly when the appellant was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 05.12.2012 in category-2, he was to complete his probation only on 04.12.2014 and as such, on the date of issuance of G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014, admittedly the appellant had not completed his probation to satisfy 10(a)(ii) to consider his case for transfer.37.Further, only on completion of the training and passing the test as contemplated under Rule 10(a)(iii) and (iv), the transfer of category could be considered. By issuance of G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014, it could be seen that by relaxing Rule 6(a), the passing of the test as required under Rule 10(a)(iv) was relaxed and further, by relaxing Rule 10(a), the appellant was only allowed to undergo the institutional training for a period of one year in Police Training College, Chennai and practical training for a period of not less than 6 months under the Superintendent of Police. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the order reads as follows:-18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024“3. The Government have carefully examined the proposal of the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, Chennai forwarded by the Director General of Police and have decided to permit Thiru.G.Muthumanickam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, [Category-II] Core Cell Security Branch CID, Chennai to undergo training as per rule 7(v) of the Tamil Nadu Police Service as was done in the case of Thiru.D.Krishnamoorthy for whom orders have been issued in the Government order first read above. Accordingly, the Government direct that in relaxation of rule 6(a) and 10(a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service, Thiru.G.Muthumanickam, Deputy Superintendent of Police [Category-II], Core Cell Security Branch, CID, Chennai be permitted to undergo training in Police Training College for a period of one year and a Superintendent of Police and pass the tests in the subjects mentioned in rule 6(a) of the said rules.4. In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 48 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby relaxes rule 6(a) and 10(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service in favour of Thiru.G.Muthumanickam, Deputy Superintendent of Police [Category-II], Core Cell Security Branch, CID, Chennai so as to enable him to undergo training for a period of one year in Police Training College, Chennai and a course of practical training for a period of not less than 6 months under a Superintendent of Police and pass the test in the subjects mentioned in rule 6(a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service.”38.In view of the above Government Order, as rightly observed by the writ court, the appellant was only permitted to undergo the training for a 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024period of one year and 9 months respectively. This Government Order had been passed only to relax certain conditions and allow the appellant for training for the requirements to be met in view of the conditions for transfer of members of service from categories as contemplated under Rule 10. However, for the actual transfer to be effected from category-2 to category-1 on satisfying all the requirements under Rule 10, a specific order of transfer by transferring an individual from one category to another shall have to be issued by the Government as contemplated under Rule 9(d). Rule 9(d) is extracted hereunder:-“9(d). All other postings and transfers including transfers from one category to another in class II of the members of the service shall be made by the State Government.”39.Even though it is vehemently contended that, in view of the relaxation granted by exercising the power under Rule 48, the appellant was immediately allowed to undergo the training by which he had completed one year of institutional training and 9 months of practical training, the dates as furnished by the appellant reveal that he had completed one year of institutional training from 01.08.2014 to 31.07.2015 and also had 6 months of practical training from 01.08.2015 to 30.04.2016 and pursuant to which he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police to category-1 on 01.05.2016. 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 202440.Even as per G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 and the subsequent modified order, the appellant had to complete one year of institutional training and thereafter undergo 9 months of practical training. The appellant completed his probation only on 04.12.2014 but had undergone the institutional training from 01.08.2014 itself and further when the practical training even according to the appellant has been modified to 9 months, the training would end only on 30.07.2016 but however he got himself posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1 even as on 01.05.2016.41.Be that as it may, nothing is placed on record to show that the Government has passed an order under Rule 9(d) by transferring the appellant from category-2 to category-1. The G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 which allowed the appellant to undergo the training, cannot be construed as an order for transfer under Rule 9(d) as the Government Order had only paved way for the appellant by granting some relaxations to meet out the conditions as required under Rule 10(a). When no order as contemplated under Rule 9(d) was actually passed by transferring the appellant to category-1, it was not within the domain of the Director General of Police to post the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of Police category-1 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024and thereafter to include in the panel of Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1 and also to grant consequential promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1.42.The writ court had observed that even though the Government possess the power under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules to relax the rules, it could be exercised only in case of exigencies and in appropriate cases and in the instant case, except the fact that the appellant has served as PSO to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, there was no exigency or any special exemplary service that necessitated the Government to exercise the power under Rule 48 and as such, the very exercise of power by the Government by relaxing the special Rule by issuance of G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 was found to be flawed. 43.Further as referred above, Rule 10 prohibits the transfer of Deputy Superintendent of Police from category-2 to category-1, except in very special cases and that too in cases where the conditions contained therein have been met. The admitted facts as referred above indicate that the appellant who had high prominence with the higher officials in view of the placement he had, was allowed and also posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1 without following the mandatory requirements.22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 202444.By posting the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1, he was allowed to carry forward the service he had rendered in category-2, by which, even though he was less meritorious and entered the Armed Reserve, he was able to have a march over all the 500 directly recruited open market candidates and 270 in-service candidates and got placed above them in the Taluk Police in the Tamil Nadu Police Force. Further by surpassing all these persons, he got himself promoted to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1 in Taluk police. This act of allowing the appellant to have undue advantage by converting from category-2 to category-1 by violating the mandatory requirements, will definitely demoralize the meritorious 770 police officers, who as per their ranking got placed in category-1 in Taluk Police. 45.The writ court, after finding that the Superintendent of Police has passed orders allowing the appellant to be posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1 without an order having been passed by the Government, which is the competent authority for granting transfer from one category to another, had quashed the impugned orders. However, the writ court had made it clear that the appellant shall be deemed to have been continued in category-2 Armed Reserve all through and whatever benefits he is entitled to with further service prospects in the said stream 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024shall be extended. As such, in view of the orders of the writ court, the appellant will be entitled to all his monetary and service benefits at the same level in category-2 instead of being in category-1.46.In view of the above deliberations, we are not able to fault the decision arrived at by the writ court and as such, the orders of the writ court are sustained. Accordingly, the writ appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.) 25.03.2025Speaking order Index: Yes Neutral Citation: Yes sriTo1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Police II) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The Additional Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Home (Police II) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.3.The Director General of Police and Head of Police Force, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, 24/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024 Mylapore, Chennai - 4.25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.andG.ARUL MURUGAN, J.sriPre-Delivery Common Judgment made inW.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024andC.M.P.Nos.12701, 12704 & 20198 of 202425.03.202526/26

W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.24643 of 2021 dated 23.04.2024.For Appellant : Mr.S.Janarthanam for Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan For Respondents:Mr.Balan Haridas - R1 & R2Mr.MA.Gouthaman &Mr.R.Krishna Kumar - R3No Appearance - R4 to R7Mr.P.KumaresanAdditional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.Yashwanth Additional Government Pleader - R8 & R9W.A.No.1774 of 2024G.Muthu Manickam... Appellantversus1.P.Stephen2.The Secretary to Government, Home (Police II) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.3.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 4....RespondentsPrayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.22959 of 2018 dated 23.04.2024.For Appellant : Mr.S.Janarthanamfor Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan For Respondents:Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan - R1Mr.P.KumaresanAdditional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.Yashwanth 2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024Additional Government Pleader - R2 & R3C O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)These two intra-court appeals are filed challenging the common order dated 23.04.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.22959 of 2018 and 24643 of 2021, whereby the impugned orders in the writ petitions transferring the appellant from Deputy Superintendent of Police (category-2) to Deputy Superintendent of Police (category-1) and the further promotion granted was set aside.The short facts to be noted in these appeals are as follows:-2.Originally, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board had issued notification on 01.01.1994 inviting applications for direct recruitment of 500 posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Men) in the Tamil Nadu Police Force. While the recruitment was almost completed, a few in-service candidates in the cadre of constables had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1368 of 1994 and others on the ground that the in-service candidates also ought to be allowed to participate in the selection. The applications came to be disposed of on 18.01.1995 and without disturbing the notification dated 01.01.1994 by 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024allowing the in-service candidates to be included in that notification, however, had directed for a separate special selection to be held for them, by prescribing 20% quota.3.While these issues were pending, the vacancies initially notified increased. The Government thereafter had issued two orders, one in G.O.(Ms.)No.1054 Home (Police III) Department dated 13.07.1995, by which the Government had directed that 20% of the vacancies in the direct recruitment be reserved for the in-service candidates i.e., Constables and Head Constables from the Armed Reserve, Taluk Police and Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion, for which the rules were sought to be amended. 4.By another order dated 01.08.1995, the direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police was increased from 500 to 1100 and a separate notification dated 18.10.1995 was also issued for 270 Sub-Inspectors of Police from among the in-service candidates against the 20% quota. As a result of which, the first batch of 500 candidates directly recruited was initially sent for training on 01.03.1996 and 267 in-service candidates recruited against the 20% quota in the second batch, along with the balance of 600 directly recruited candidates in the third batch, were sent for training on 02.06.1997. In all, 1100 candidates under direct recruitment 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024and 267 in-service candidates were recruited and joined in the service.5.There are 3 categories of service under the Tamil Nadu Police Force, viz., (i) the Taluk Police, (ii) the Armed Reserve and (iii) Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. The selection of the candidates and their seniority was based on the marks secured by them. As per the vacancies available, the candidates with higher marks first joined in the Taluk Police, followed by the service in the Armed Reserve and the candidates who had secured lesser marks, have joined in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. 6.In this selection, it is submitted that all the 500 Sub-Inspectors of Police directly recruited from the open market were meritorious and they have joined in the Taluk Police. Further, 270 in-service candidates recruited had also joined in the Taluk Police and out of the balance 600 directly recruited candidates from the open market, 354 have joined in the Armed Reserve and 151 persons have joined in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion.7.In fact, these 270 in-service candidates recruited wanted themselves to be placed as seniors to the 500 directly recruited candidates from the open market in the Taluk Police of first batch and in this regard, 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024they have filed writ petitions and in W.A.Nos.1599 and 1600 of 2014, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 11.03.2015 by observing that 500 candidates from the open market who were recruited and placed in the Taluk Police belong to the Notification issued on 01.01.1994 for which the selection process were completed and they were sent for training in the year 1996, whereas the in-service candidates got recruited later and were sent for training in the year 1997, had held that they cannot claim seniority over and above the directly recruited candidates in the open market. The Division Bench had also recorded that, the controversy is pending in respect of the seniority of these 270 in-service candidates and the other candidates out of 600 candidates, who got recruited from the open market and placed under the Taluk Police.8.From the above, it is evident that 500 directly recruited candidates from the open market who joined in the Taluk Police and 270 in-service candidates who got recruited and joined in the Taluk Police based on their order of merit are seniors to the directly recruited candidates who were only able to enter the services in the Armed Reserve category and the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. The private respondents in these appeals were all directly recruited candidates from the open market who secured higher marks and have joined in the Taluk Police, whereas the appellant 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024herein, due to the lesser marks secured, was able to join only in the Armed Reserve.9.The candidates placed under each service had their own hierarchy of promotion. The policeman in the Taluk Police, where the strength was large, had to wait to earn their promotion, but the candidates under the Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion, where the strength was lesser, had quicker chances for securing promotion.10.Admittedly, the appellant was promoted to the post of Inspector and thereafter to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Armed Reserve in category-2, whereas the private respondents had also later secured their promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Taluk Police in category-1.11.At this stage, the entire controversy arose in view of the appellant submitting a representation in seeking for a transfer of his service from category-2 to category-1 and based on the recommendations of the third respondent, the second respondent / Government had issued G.O.(Ms.)No.407 Home (Police-2) Department dated 05.06.2014 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024[hereinafter referred to as “G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014”] by exercising the power under Rule 48 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules granting relaxation under Rule 6(a) and Rule 10(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service. 12.The Government Order allowed the appellant to undergo the training for being transferred and subsequently the third respondent had also included the appellant in the panel for Assistant Superintendent of Police and they have promoted him to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Police in category-1 of Tamil Nadu Police Service.13.Assailing these proceedings, the private respondents have preferred two separate writ petitions, one challenging the G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 and the other challenging the inclusion in the panel and promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1 for the year 2020-2021. The writ court by taking note of the fact that G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 issued by the Government only enabled the appellant to undergo the training for considering his case for transfer from category-2 to category-1, but however, no such orders for actual transfer of category of the appellant had been issued as required under Rule 10-e which can only be issued by the Government, held that the subsequent 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024orders of the third respondent by granting promotion to the appellant as Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1 of the Tamil Nadu Police Service is not sustainable.14.The writ court also observed that when the Government can exercise the power under Rule 48 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules only under exceptional circumstances, to avoid undue hardship or exigencies of services, the power of relaxation has been exercised only on the ground that the appellant had worked as PSO to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and had rendered an outstanding service simply based on a representation submitted by the appellant. As such holding that the very exercise of power under Rule 48 was erroneous, the writ court had set aside the impugned orders and allowed the writ petitions. However, the writ court made it clear that the appellant shall be deemed to have been continued in the stream of Armed Reserve and will be entitled for all the benefits in the said stream. Assailing the impugned orders, the appellant has preferred the above two appeals.15.Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. G.Mohana Krishnan, appearing for the appellant contended that, the appellant is entitled to seek for a transfer of his service from category-2 to 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024category-1, which is permissible under Rule 10 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service. He further contended that his representation was considered and by proceedings dated 16.12.2013, he was recommended for conversion to category-1 based on his exemplary services in the Department and the Government being the competent authority, had issued G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 by exercising the power under Rule 48 and had relaxed Rule 6(a) and 10(a) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service, which enables the appellant to undergo the training.16.Learned counsel further contended that in view of the Government Order issued, the appellant had successfully completed the training period and based on which, he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1 on 01.05.2016 and later by G.O.(Ms.)No.129 Home (Police 1A) Department dated 26.02.2021, he was included in the panel for the post of Additional Superintendent of Police (category-1) in the year 2020-2021 and had also been promoted and posted as Additional Superintendent of Police.17.It is his further contention that it was the prerogative and within the domain of the State Government to exercise the power under Rule 48 for granting relaxation, which cannot be questioned by the private respondents and in fact the power has been exercised only considering the meritorious 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024service extended by the appellant. He further contended that when all these 1367 candidates belong to the same batch, there is no question of any separate seniority among them and the learned Judge erred in rendering a finding that the Government had exercised the power without any actual need or justification. When the power of relaxation was available with the Government, the learned Judge ought not to have gone into the question of justification when it is the domain of the state.18.He further submitted that when G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 itself has been issued only to enable the appellant to be transferred to category-1, the finding that no such order for transfer is issued is baseless, he contended and sought for indulgence of this Court.19.Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General for Mr.S.Yashwanth, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State supporting the stand of the appellant contended that only in view of the meritorious service, the Government had exercised the power under Rule 48 and granted relaxation of Rules 6(a) and 10(e) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service.20.Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that it 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024is for the Government to decide as to whether the meritorious services rendered by the candidates are eligible to be considered for transfer, particularly when the transfer of category is permitted under Rule 10 of the Special Rules.21.He further submitted that based on the Government Order issued, the appellant had completed all the training and based on which, he had also been posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1 and subsequently was also included in the panel and promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1 of Taluk Police and the belated challenge made by the private respondents is unsustainable.22.Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan appearing for the private respondents submitted that the appellant, who was less meritorious and was able to enter in the Armed Reserve, cannot steal a march over the private respondents who were meritorious and got placed in the Taluk Police. He further contended that when even 270 in-service candidates recruited were not able to secure seniority over and above these directly recruited private respondents, the appellant, by obtaining conversion to category-1, is to become senior to all these 770 and the other persons placed in the Taluk Police from out of 600.12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 202423.It is his further contention that merely because someone has prominence and is fortunate to serve as PSO to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, that will not entitle him to have a transfer of category and benefits at the cost of the private respondents and sought for dismissal of these appeals.24.Heard the arguments of the respective counsels and perused the materials available on record.25.The whole issue that arises in these appeals is as to whether the G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 issued by exercising the power under Rule 48 and granting relaxation of special rules is valid and sufficient for effecting transfer from category-2 (Armed Reserve) to category-1 (Taluk Police).26.Admittedly, the selection process for selecting the Sub-Inspectors of Police of the Tamil Nadu Police Force was initiated by issuance of the Notification on 01.01.1994 for 500 posts. Later, pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, 20% reservation was made for the in-service candidates out of the direct recruitment quota. In view of the subsequent increase in vacancies, separate orders were issued for the selection of 270 in-service candidates and further 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024600 candidates to be directly recruited from the open market, apart from the initial 500 posts for which the recruitment process itself was almost completed.27.It is not in dispute that the candidates were able to join in the different services based on the vacancies and marks secured by them in the selection process. The Tamil Nadu Police Force, contains 3 services, viz. the Taluk Police, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. The candidates who were meritorious joined the Taluk Police, followed by the Armed Reserve and other candidates to the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. 28.In the recruitments conducted, the private respondents were recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police from among the 500 candidates in the first batch and they had all joined in the Taluk Police in the year 1996 itself. Thereafter, 270 in-service candidates recruited had also joined in the Taluk Police and further as per vacancy some of the candidates from the third batch of 600 directly recruited candidates from the open market also joined in the Taluk Police. After which, 354 candidates had joined in the Armed Reserve and 151 candidates have joined in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 202429.When the private respondents were placed much seniors in the seniority list under the Taluk Police, the appellant stood at Serial No.89 in category-2 under the Armed Reserve. The appellant, being in the Armed Reserve had quick chances of promotion and he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police and thereafter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police as on 05.12.2012 under category-2. The private respondents had also been subsequently promoted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1.30.The appellant, while so, had made a representation on 20.11.2013 expressing his interest to work under Category-1 and therefore, he requested the Government to consider him for deputing for the training so as to enable him to become Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1, which was recommended by the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, Chennai. 31.The Director General of Police has forwarded the report to the Government on 11.03.2014 recommending for conversion. Based on which the Government has issued G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 by exercising the power under Rule 48 of General Rules for the Tamil Nadu 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024State and Subordinate Service Rules and thereby relaxing Rules 6(a) and 10(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service to enable the appellant to undergo the training.32.Rule 10(a) of the Special Rules for The Tamil Nadu Police Service deals with the conditions for transfer of members of the service from categories 2, 3 and 3A to category-1 under class-II. For easy reference, Rule 10(a) is extracted hereunder:-“10(a) No Deputy Superintendent of Police, category 2 shall, except in very special cases, be posted or transferred as Deputy Superintendent of Police, category-1, unless he-(i) possesses a good record of service;(ii) has completed the prescribed period of probation as Deputy Superintendent of Police category-2;(iii) has undergone a course of training in the Police Training College, Chennai for six months and a course of practical training for six months under, a Superintendent of Police; and (iv) has passed the tests in the subject mentioned in rule 6(a).”33.As per the above Rule, the transfer of the Deputy Superintendent of Police from category-1 to category-2 shall be allowed only in very special cases that too after the conditions contained therein are fulfilled. As per the conditions, the candidate must possess a good service record, must have completed probation as Deputy Superintendent of Police 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024in category-2, must have undergone the institutional and practical training for the period mentioned thereunder and had also passed the tests as contemplated under Rule 6(a). Even if all these conditions are fulfilled, still such transfer could be effected only in very special cases.34.Now as per G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 issued by the Government by exercising the power under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, they relaxed Rules 6(a) and 10(a) of the Special Rules and had allowed the appellant to undergo the training. The order refers to the recommendations made by the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence and states that the appellant had performed his duties in an outstanding manner and his dedicated and tireless efforts have drawn praise from all the senior officers and therefore deserves for conversion from category-2 to category-1. 35.Even though such an observation could satisfy the condition of possessing a good service record as per Rule 10(a)(i), no circumstances for treating it as a very special case for allowing conversion are stated in the order. It is not in dispute that the appellant who had the fortune of serving as PSO to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, had prominence with the higher officials and except for the same, as observed by the learned Judge, no special 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024circumstances or any special cases are recorded which necessitated or allowed the Government to allow the appellant to undergo the training for getting converted from category-2 to category-1.36.As per Rule 10(a)(ii), for considering a case for transfer, then the Deputy Superintendent of Police ought to have completed his probation. Admittedly when the appellant was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 05.12.2012 in category-2, he was to complete his probation only on 04.12.2014 and as such, on the date of issuance of G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014, admittedly the appellant had not completed his probation to satisfy 10(a)(ii) to consider his case for transfer.37.Further, only on completion of the training and passing the test as contemplated under Rule 10(a)(iii) and (iv), the transfer of category could be considered. By issuance of G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014, it could be seen that by relaxing Rule 6(a), the passing of the test as required under Rule 10(a)(iv) was relaxed and further, by relaxing Rule 10(a), the appellant was only allowed to undergo the institutional training for a period of one year in Police Training College, Chennai and practical training for a period of not less than 6 months under the Superintendent of Police. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the order reads as follows:-18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024“3. The Government have carefully examined the proposal of the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, Chennai forwarded by the Director General of Police and have decided to permit Thiru.G.Muthumanickam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, [Category-II] Core Cell Security Branch CID, Chennai to undergo training as per rule 7(v) of the Tamil Nadu Police Service as was done in the case of Thiru.D.Krishnamoorthy for whom orders have been issued in the Government order first read above. Accordingly, the Government direct that in relaxation of rule 6(a) and 10(a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service, Thiru.G.Muthumanickam, Deputy Superintendent of Police [Category-II], Core Cell Security Branch, CID, Chennai be permitted to undergo training in Police Training College for a period of one year and a Superintendent of Police and pass the tests in the subjects mentioned in rule 6(a) of the said rules.4. In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 48 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby relaxes rule 6(a) and 10(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Service in favour of Thiru.G.Muthumanickam, Deputy Superintendent of Police [Category-II], Core Cell Security Branch, CID, Chennai so as to enable him to undergo training for a period of one year in Police Training College, Chennai and a course of practical training for a period of not less than 6 months under a Superintendent of Police and pass the test in the subjects mentioned in rule 6(a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service.”38.In view of the above Government Order, as rightly observed by the writ court, the appellant was only permitted to undergo the training for a 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024period of one year and 9 months respectively. This Government Order had been passed only to relax certain conditions and allow the appellant for training for the requirements to be met in view of the conditions for transfer of members of service from categories as contemplated under Rule 10. However, for the actual transfer to be effected from category-2 to category-1 on satisfying all the requirements under Rule 10, a specific order of transfer by transferring an individual from one category to another shall have to be issued by the Government as contemplated under Rule 9(d). Rule 9(d) is extracted hereunder:-“9(d). All other postings and transfers including transfers from one category to another in class II of the members of the service shall be made by the State Government.”39.Even though it is vehemently contended that, in view of the relaxation granted by exercising the power under Rule 48, the appellant was immediately allowed to undergo the training by which he had completed one year of institutional training and 9 months of practical training, the dates as furnished by the appellant reveal that he had completed one year of institutional training from 01.08.2014 to 31.07.2015 and also had 6 months of practical training from 01.08.2015 to 30.04.2016 and pursuant to which he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police to category-1 on 01.05.2016. 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 202440.Even as per G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 and the subsequent modified order, the appellant had to complete one year of institutional training and thereafter undergo 9 months of practical training. The appellant completed his probation only on 04.12.2014 but had undergone the institutional training from 01.08.2014 itself and further when the practical training even according to the appellant has been modified to 9 months, the training would end only on 30.07.2016 but however he got himself posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1 even as on 01.05.2016.41.Be that as it may, nothing is placed on record to show that the Government has passed an order under Rule 9(d) by transferring the appellant from category-2 to category-1. The G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 which allowed the appellant to undergo the training, cannot be construed as an order for transfer under Rule 9(d) as the Government Order had only paved way for the appellant by granting some relaxations to meet out the conditions as required under Rule 10(a). When no order as contemplated under Rule 9(d) was actually passed by transferring the appellant to category-1, it was not within the domain of the Director General of Police to post the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of Police category-1 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024and thereafter to include in the panel of Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1 and also to grant consequential promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1.42.The writ court had observed that even though the Government possess the power under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules to relax the rules, it could be exercised only in case of exigencies and in appropriate cases and in the instant case, except the fact that the appellant has served as PSO to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, there was no exigency or any special exemplary service that necessitated the Government to exercise the power under Rule 48 and as such, the very exercise of power by the Government by relaxing the special Rule by issuance of G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 was found to be flawed. 43.Further as referred above, Rule 10 prohibits the transfer of Deputy Superintendent of Police from category-2 to category-1, except in very special cases and that too in cases where the conditions contained therein have been met. The admitted facts as referred above indicate that the appellant who had high prominence with the higher officials in view of the placement he had, was allowed and also posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1 without following the mandatory requirements.22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 202444.By posting the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1, he was allowed to carry forward the service he had rendered in category-2, by which, even though he was less meritorious and entered the Armed Reserve, he was able to have a march over all the 500 directly recruited open market candidates and 270 in-service candidates and got placed above them in the Taluk Police in the Tamil Nadu Police Force. Further by surpassing all these persons, he got himself promoted to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police in category-1 in Taluk police. This act of allowing the appellant to have undue advantage by converting from category-2 to category-1 by violating the mandatory requirements, will definitely demoralize the meritorious 770 police officers, who as per their ranking got placed in category-1 in Taluk Police. 45.The writ court, after finding that the Superintendent of Police has passed orders allowing the appellant to be posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category-1 without an order having been passed by the Government, which is the competent authority for granting transfer from one category to another, had quashed the impugned orders. However, the writ court had made it clear that the appellant shall be deemed to have been continued in category-2 Armed Reserve all through and whatever benefits he is entitled to with further service prospects in the said stream 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024shall be extended. As such, in view of the orders of the writ court, the appellant will be entitled to all his monetary and service benefits at the same level in category-2 instead of being in category-1.46.In view of the above deliberations, we are not able to fault the decision arrived at by the writ court and as such, the orders of the writ court are sustained. Accordingly, the writ appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.) 25.03.2025Speaking order Index: Yes Neutral Citation: Yes sriTo1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Police II) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The Additional Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Home (Police II) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.3.The Director General of Police and Head of Police Force, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, 24/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024 Mylapore, Chennai - 4.25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.andG.ARUL MURUGAN, J.sriPre-Delivery Common Judgment made inW.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024andC.M.P.Nos.12701, 12704 & 20198 of 202425.03.202526/26