S.Sakthivel v. Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. & Ors.

14.S.Vasivam, Reg. No.220038715.R.Venkatesan, Reg. No.113816.P.Ramesh, Reg. No.150168017.S.Muruganandam, Reg. No.180072618.M.Ilayaraja, Reg. No.220142219.M.Rajakumar, Reg. No.220246920.M.Durai Pandi, Reg. No.220046721.U.Rajasekaran, Reg. No.010230522.K.Senthil Kumar, Reg. No.010219323.K.Prabakar, Reg. No.010056724.R.Rajesh, Reg. No.230093625.A.Dineshkumar, Reg. No.168026.S.Viramani, Reg. No.720053427.R.Jeyasingh, Reg. No.240145028.N.Rajasekaran, Reg. No.240009929.M.Prabu, Reg. No.190055430.S.Umaiorubagam, Reg. No.290088631.S.Shunmugavel, Reg. No.280180032.K.Arunachalam, Reg. No.290108633.J.Krishnaraj, Reg. No.040062134.N.Sudalaimani, Reg. No.134035.E.Balaraman, Reg. No.0400753 .. PetitionersVs.1. Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2. Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004. .. RespondentsThis writ petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution, praying for the issue of a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orderpassed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings LetterNo.45729/Police-3/2008-30 dated 05.12.2008 and quash the same in sofar as the petitioners are concerned and consequently direct therespondents herein to restore the petitioners as Sub-Inspector ofPolice (Taluk Police) as per the original appointment ordertogether with alla service benefits.W.P.Nos.89 and 90 of 2009V.Muthumarriammal .. Petitioner in WP 89/2009M.Annalakshmi .. Petitioner in WP 90/2009Vs.1. Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004. .. Respondents in both WpsThese writ petitions filed under Article 226 of theConstitution, praying for the issue of a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orderpassed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings LetterNo.45729/Police-3/2008-30 dated 05.12.2008 and quash the same in sofar as the petitioners are concerned and consequently direct therespondents herein to restore the petitioners as Sub-Inspector ofPolice (Armed Reserve) as per the original appointment ordertogether with all service benefits.For Petitioners in all WPs : Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for M/s. G. Bala & DaisyFor Respondents in all WPs : Mr.P.S.Raman, Addl. Advocate General.COMMON ORDERThe petitioners in all these cases have come up with achallenge to the show cause notices issued to them by the firstrespondent, seeking to revise their allotment from Taluk Police toArmed Reserve or from Armed Reserve to Tamil Nadu Special Policefor appointment.2. I have heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counselappearing for the petitioners in all these writ petitions andMr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General for therespondents in all these writ petitions.3. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board issueda Notification for recruitment of Men/Women Sub Inspectors ofPolice in the year 2006. By the Notification, 445 posts of Men SubInspectors of Police and 72 posts of Women Sub Inspectors of Policewere sought to be filled up, out of which 20% of the vacancies werereserved for departmental candidates. The Notification was a commonNotification for filling up the posts of Sub Inspectors to TalukPolice, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police. However theNotification also indicated that the allotment of selectedcandidates to Taluk Police, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu SpecialPolice (TSP) would be made on the basis of the marks secured andthat the rule of reservation for various communities would beapplied as per the existing provisions.4. All the petitioners were already in service in the PoliceDepartment and all of them appeared for selection under the 20%quota reserved for departmental candidates. All of them weredeclared selected and they were also sent for training, either asSub Inspectors of Police (Taluk Police) or as Sub Inspectors ofPolice (Armed Reserve). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. A group of unselected candidates filed a batch of writpetitions in W.P.No.14482 of 2007 etc., contending that the writtenexamination was not conducted properly and that the viva voce wasactually manipulated. All the writ petitions were dismissed by anorder dated 20.11.2007 holding that the written test was conductedin a proper manner. The unsuccessful candidates challenged thedismissal of their writ petitions before the Division Bench inW.A.Nos.1598 to 1602 of 2007 batch of cases. The Division Benchalso dismissed the Writ Appeals by an order dated 28.3.2008. TheSpecial Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court were alsodismissed on 13.10.2008, thereby putting a seal of approval on theselection.6. In the meantime, the respondents issued certain proceedingsseeking to change the allotment of some of the selected candidatesfrom Taluk Police to Armed Reserve or from Armed Reserve to TamilNadu Special Police (TSP). Challenging those revised allotments,the petitioners herein as well as a few others, filed a batch ofwrit petitions in W.P.No.11181 of 2008 etc. Those writ petitionswere allowed by a common order dated 9.7.2008 primarily on twogrounds viz., (i) that the allotment from Taluk Police to ArmedReserve amounted to reversion or reduction to a lower category andhence cannot be ordered without notice and (ii) that under Rules 5of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services,1953, the State Government alone was competent to issue revisedallotment orders to the list of approved candidates.7. Consequent upon the above decision dated 9.7.2008 renderedin the batch of cases W.P.No.11181 of 2008 etc., the StateGovernment issued show cause notices dated 5.12.2008 to thepetitioners herein, calling upon the petitioners to show cause asto why their allotment shall not be changed either from TalukPolice to Armed Reserve or from Armed Reserve to T.S.P. Challengingthese show cause notices, the petitioners have come up with thepresent writ petitions.8. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioners assailed the impugned show cause notices on thefollowing grounds viz.:-(a) The respondents took a positive stand in the counteraffidavits filed in the batch of cases filed by the unsuccessfulcandidates challenging the selection that the selection andallotment of candidates were made properly in accordance with themarks obtained by the candidates after applying the rules ofreservation. After having taken such a stand in the writ petitionsfiled by the unsuccessful candidates, the respondents have nowissued the impugned show cause notices, taking a diametricallyopposite position. Inasmuch as the respondents are bound by thestand taken in the batch of writ petitions filed by theunsuccessful candidates W.P.No.14482 of 2007 etc., it is not opento the respondents now to contend that there were discrepancies inthe application of communal rotation and that therefore there was aneed to revise the allotment order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) Rule 5 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu PoliceSubordinate Services, under which the impugned show cause noticesare issued, empowers the State Government only to revise the listof approved candidates, prior to their appointment. The Rule doesnot empower the State Government to revise the list of candidatesalready appointed from the list of approved candidates.(c) In any case, the impugned show cause notices do notcontain any factual detail enabling the petitioners to makeeffective representations. The show cause notices merely say thatthe Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB)pointed out some discrepancies in the application of communalrotation and that therefore there was a necessity to set right thediscrepancies. This is a very vague statement to which none of thepetitioners can make any reply and hence according to the learnedSenior counsel for the petitioners, the impuged show cause noticesare liable to be set aside.9. In response, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional AdvocateGeneral submitted that the stand taken by the respondents in theprevious batch of cases had to be understood in the context of thedispute raised by the unsuccessful candidates as against thesuccessful candidates. It had nothing to do with the allotment ofcandidates on the basis of the marks after applying communalrotation. Moreover, the petitioners challenged the revisedallotment orders issued by the Additional Director General ofPolice on the ground of violation of the principles of naturaljustice and the competence of those authorities to issue revisedallotment orders in view of Rule 5 of the Special Rules. This Courtaccepted the above contentions and consequently the Governmentthought fit to remove those technical objections by taking recourseto Rule 5. In any event, the proceedings impugned in all the writpetitions are only show cause notices to which the petitioners areobliged to furnish replies and are entitled to come to Court iforders adverse to them are passed. Therefore the learned AdditionalAdvocate General contended that the petitioners are not entitled tochallenge the very show cause notices.10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Itappears from the two rounds of earlier litigation, one filed by theunsuccessful candidates and the other filed by the present writpetitioners, challenging the revised allotment orders that therespondents themselves are to be blamed for the mess in which theynow find themselves in. There has not been either a clarity orconsistency in the stand taken by the respondents both with regardto the hierarchy of posts to which appointments were made and withregard to the interchangeability of posts and the powers of theGovernment to revise the allotments made. The confusion created bythe respondents themselves resulted in this Court being led tobelieve in the second round of litigation (filed by the presentpetitioners challenging the revised allotment orders) that theallotment of candidates from Taluk Police to Armed Reserve or fromArmed Reserve to T.S.P., is a reversion. Even on an earlieroccasion, the respondents appear to have taken a stand before theDivision Bench of this Court that all the three categories of postsviz., Sub Inspectors (Taluk Police), Sub Inspectors (Armed Reserve) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and Sub Inspectors (TSP) are not interchangeable. Yet theGovernment have passed several orders in the past, right from theyear 1996, transferring hundreds of Sub Inspectors from ArmedReserve to Taluk Police, each time calling it as an one timemeasure. Thus, at every point of time, the respondents appear tohave taken different positions, to suit the occasion, withoutreference to the Special Rules. The confusion is further compoundedby a Circular issued by the Director General dated 24.2.1987calling the transfer of a person from local police to Armed Reserveas a punishment. The history of the Subordinate Police Serviceshows that despite all the three categories of posts carrying thesame scale of pay, there is a craving for Taluk Police, forextraneous considerations. Therefore before adverting to the otherissues, it is necessary for me to explode the myth as to whetherthe three categories of posts are superior or inferior to oneanother, making a transfer from one to the other, either apromotion or a reversion/reduction of category.WHETHER TRANSFER FROM TALUK POLICE TO ARMED RESERVE OR TSP IS AREVERSION:11. The Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police SubordinateService were originally issued under G.O.Ms.No.2743, Publice(Services) Department, dated 30.9.1953 in exercise of powersconferred by Sections 8 and 10 of the Madras District Police Act,1859 and Sections 9 and 11 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 readwith the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule2 grouped the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service into fourClasses viz., Class-I, Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV. Class-I ofthe service consisted of seven categories of posts, out of whichone was abolished in the year 1983. The remaining six categories ofposts under Class-I of the service are as follows:-"Category1. Inspectors of Police and Inspectors inVigilance and Anti-Corruption.2. Sub Inspectors of Police.3. Reserve Inspectors.4. Reserve Sub Inspectors Office of theDirector General of Police, Madras.5.abolished 6.Head Constables including Band HeadConstables Office of the Director General ofPolice, Madras and Reserve Head Constablesincluding Armourers, Signallers and Motor TransportDrivers.7.Constables including Band Constables, Officeof the Director General of Police, Madras, ReserveConstable, Buglers and Bellow Boys." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. Rule 3 (a) (i) prescribes that appointment to severalclasses and categories shall be made as indicated in Annexure-I.Rule 11 stipulates that the selection for appointment of SubInspectors by direct recruitment shall be made by the T.N.U.S.R.B.It also prescribes the communal rotation to be adopted while makingsuch appointments. Rule 12 relates to selection and appointment ofReserve Sub Inspectors. Akin to Rule 11, Rule 12 also prescribesthat the selection of Reserve Sub Inspectors should be made byT.N.U.S.R.B and that the communal rotation shall apply.13. Rule 14-B reads as follows:-"14-B(1) On recruitment a Police Constableshall join in an Armed Police Battalion. Heshall be imparted with a rigorous trainingwhich will suit the needs of both the ArmedPolice outdoor duties and the contrastingduties of Taluk Police. The emphasis shall beon good public relations. He shall be speciallytrained in responding to the needs of thecommon man as detailed below:-(a) to impart knowledge of law withspecial emphasis on constitutional rights ofcitizens.(b) to give both the critical andpractical knowledge about the functioning ofPolice units, especially Police Station andOutposts.(c) to teach the scientific methods ofinvestigation.(d) to bring about qualitative change inthe outlook of Police Constables to maintaingood Police – Public relationship.(e) to develop their leadership qualitiesto command and control any unit under theircharge.(f) to improve their talents in sports andother extra curricular activities.(g) to mould them into first rate citizensand models for others to emulate.(ii) After such training the PoliceConstable shall serve in the Tamil Nadu SpecialPolice Battalion for the first three years.Thereafter he shall be transferred to DistrictArmed Reserve where he shall serve for a periodof not less than one year, after which he shallbe transferred to Taluk Police establishment." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thus, in so far as Constables are concerned, the first appointmentappears to be, to the TSP, from where a person is posted to ArmedReserve and then to the Taluk Police, by virtue of Rule 14-B. Butunfortunately, there is no similar provision with regard to SubInspectors.14. Rule 18 (a) deals with the training to be given toprobationers and the pay admissible to them. The said rule relatingto Sub Inspectors, Reserve Sub Inspectors and Constables requiresreproduction and hence it is extracted as follows:-"18(a) Probationers who have to undergo training andtheir pay:Probationers shall undergo training and examination asfollows within the period of their probation and their payduring the period shall be as indicated below:------------------------------------------------------------ PROBATION COURSE OF TRAINING PAY(1) (2) (3)-----------------------------------------------------------1. Sub Inspectors (1) Course of Training (a) Sub Inspectors recruited direct for one year in the recruited or by transfer Police Training direct during from any other College, Madras the period of service (Category and examination in training in 2 of Class I) the subject the College prescribed for the and during the course. period of practical training otherwise than on independent of a Police Station in minimum time scale pay.1(a) Reserve Sub(1) Course of Training The pay as Inspectors for one year in the they would in the Armed Police Training have drawn Reserve College, Madras but for this on appointment and examination training. as Sub Inspector in the subject on transfer. prescribed for the course.A probationer shall have two chances for passing theexaminations one at the end of the course and the secondsix months hence.Provided that the Director General of Police, may foradequate reasons to be recorded in writing allow aprobationer a third chance to pass the examination.(The deficiency in the period of training of a freshprobationer appointed in the place of a first recruit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ within three months after the opening of the College shallbe disregarded)(ii) After the above course, practical During the period of training for one year and six months, practical training in including independent charge of a independent charge Police Station for not less than one of a Police Station year and an oral examination in and thereafter during practice held by the Superintendent the period of of Police in the Mofussil and by a probation, the minimum Deputy Commissioner under thepay in orders of the Commissioner of Police the time scale of pay. in the City of Madras.2. Reserve Sub Inspectors (Category 5 During the first twelve of Class I recruited direct) months a special course of training with the Malabar Special Police."15. Rule 25 deals with seniority. Sub Rule (b) of Rule 25makes it clear that the transfer of a person from one class orcategory of the service, to another class or category of theservice carrying the same scale of pay shall not be treated asfirst appointment to the latter class or category of post. ThisRule 25 (b) reads as follows:-"(b) The transfer of a person from one classor category of the service to another class orcategory carrying the same pay or scale of payshall not be treated as first appointment to thelatter for purposes of seniority and the seniorityof a person so transferred, shall be determinedwith reference to the rank in the class or categoryfrom which he was transferred. Where any difficultyor doubt arises in applying this sub rule seniorityshall be determined by the appointing authority." 16. Rule 32 which deals with transfers and postings containsno restrictions for posting a person from one category of post toanother carrying the same scale of pay.17. The Annexure-I under Rule 3 (a) prescribes the methods ofappointment and the appointing authorities for each category ofpost. It was amended by G.O.Ms.No.1532, Home Department, dated1.7.1988 with effect from 15.11.1974, to the effect that ReserveSub Inspectors of Police in the Armed Reserve shall also beeligible for appointment to the posts of Sub Inspectors (TalukPolice) by transfer, within the 60% quota reserved for directrecruitment. It is seen from Annexure-I that the method ofappointment of Sub Inspectors of Police (meaning Sub Inspectors ofPolice (Taluk Police)) is either by promotion from among HeadConstables or by direct recruitment or transfer from any otherclass or category or recruitment by transfer from any other service(as amended by G.O.Ms.No.2635, Home (Pol.III) Department, dated22.9.1986). Annexure-I prescribes similar methods of recruitment incommon for (i) Head Constables and Reserve Head Constables and (ii)Constables and Reserve Constables. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. While the Inspectors, Sub Inspectors and Constables, bothin the Taluk Police and in the Armed Reserve, are governed by thesame set of rules viz., the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu PoliceSubordinate Services, the Inspectors, Sub Inspectors and Constablesof Tamil Nadu Special Police are governed by the Special Rules forTamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service, 1978.19. From the two sets of Special Rules, one governing theposts of Sub Inspector (Taluk Police) and Sub Inspector (ArmedReserve) and another governing the post of Sub Inspector (TSP), itis seen that the posts are actually equivalent in status. While theposts of Sub Inspector (Taluk Police) and Sub Inspector (ArmedReserve) belong to categories 2 and 4 respectively of Class I ofthe Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, the post of SubInspector (TSP) belongs to Tamil Nadu Special Police SubordinateService. But all of them admittedly carry the same scale of pay andthe next avenue of promotion to all of them is the post ofInspector. The method of appointment to each of these posts underthe respective rules, include transfer from any other category orservice. The seniority of such person transferred from one categoryto another or from one service to another, is also protected byRule 25 (b) which I have extracted earlier. If a person cannot beappointed from one category to another, Rule 25 (b) has no placeand would be redundant. Direct recruitment to all these posts arethrough the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board througha common recruitment drive. The Notification for appointment itselfestablishes this and one post is not shown to be inferior in statusto the other. 20. While the position with regard to the status of thesethree categories of posts, under the statutory rules, is as abovementioned, the respondents appear to have messed up the wholeissue. It is seen from a decision of a Division Bench of this Courtin A.D.Sakkaravarthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, dated 16.3.2004 inW.P.No.9515 of 2000, that the Government filed a counter contendingthat these three categories of posts were not interchangeable.Paragraph-3 of the said decision containing an extract of thecounter filed by the respondents, reads as follows:-"3. The respondents have filed counter.The contents of the counter is as follows:-"The Sub Inspectors of Police areappointed in three categories: 1) Taluk Police,2) Armed Reserve, 3) Tamil Nadu Special Police.The Sub Inspector of Police in Taluk Police andArmed Reserve are governed by the Special Rulesfor Tamil Nadu police subordinate servicerules, 1953. The Sub Inspector of Police inTamil Nadu Special Police is governed by theSpecial Rules for Tamil Nadu Special policeSubordinate service rules, 1978. There is noprovision in Tamil Nadu police subordinateservice rules for transferring the SubInspector of Police from one category toanother category. Thus, all the three https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ categories are not interchangeable. The line ofpromotion is also different."On the basis of the above counter, the Division Bench held inparagraph-9 as follows:-"9. As per the service rules, the threecategories of Sub Inspectors of Police have theirown line of promotional prospects to the post ofInspector of Police in the case of Category. Inother words, the candidates were selected for thepost of Sub Inspectors of Police in the PoliceForce comprising three wings having separateservice rules, training procedures and duties andresponsibilities. Their posting to the ratio basedon the marks secured by them during the selectionprocess not by following the Single Point EntrySystem."21. The above case arose out of a claim made by a person whowas selected for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (ArmedReserve). He filed an application before the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to the respondents toappoint him as Sub Inspector in Taluk Police on the basis ofseniority. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal and hefiled a writ petition before this Court. The respondents filed acounter in the said writ petition contending that all the abovethree categories of posts are governed by separate set of rules andthat they are not interchangeable. But nevertheless in paragraph-6of the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court recorded thefact that in the transfer of Sub Inspectors of Police in ArmedReserve and in TSP to Taluk Police, there are stipulatedconditions, though it is not automatic. Thus the fact that a personcan be transferred from one category to the other was recognisedeven in the said decision.22. Interestingly, the above Division Bench decision wasrendered in March 2004. The very same respondents had passedseveral orders, transferring persons from AR/TSP to Taluk Police,right from 1996, inspite of which, they took such a stand beforethe Division Bench. The details of such orders are as follows:-(a) Way back in the year 1996, the Government examined thequestion of transfer of Sub Inspectors of Police in Armed Reserveand TSP to Taluk Police, to enable them to work in Regular Law andOrder Wing also. Thereafter an order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.1512,Home (Police III) Department, dated 9.10.1996, directing that theSub Inspectors of Police AR/TSP shall be transferred to TalukPolice as a one time measure subject to certain conditions.Following the said order, necessary amendments to the Special Ruleswere also issued under G.O.Ms.No.525, Home (Police III) Department,dated 4.4.1997. The amendments so made were to the followingeffect:-(i) that such transferees from AR/TSP to Taluk Police need notundergo probation in the transferred post if they have alreadycompleted their probation; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) that such transferees will take seniority in the categoryof Sub Inspectors (Taluk Police) below the direct recruits of theyear in which they were transferred. There was also an amendmentwith regard to the conditions to be satisfied for the purpose ofsuch transfer.(b) Subsequently, the Government issued an order, on the basisof the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Police Commission, inG.O.Ms.No.1598, Home (Police III) Department, dated 5.11.1997,reserving 10% of the vacancies under the direct recruitment quota(for the post of Sub Inspectors Taluk Police) for being filled upby the Sub Inspectors of Police AR/TSP. By the said order, 10% ofthe vacancies under the direct recruitment quota was carved out forbeing filled up by transfer.(c) In the year 2003, an order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.446,Home (Police III) Department, dated 27.5.2003, directing that about503 directly recruited Sub Inspectors of Police (AR) and SubInspectors of Police (TSP) of the 1994-1995 batch be appointed asSub Inspectors of Police (Taluk Police) by transfer/recruitment bytransfer against the direct recruitment vacancies of the year 2002,subject to certain conditions. The seniority of such transfereeswas directed to be fixed with reference to Rule 25 (b).Consequently, an amendment to the Rules was also issued underG.O.Ms.No.1268, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 2.11.2004.Interestingly, one of the amendments made under the said order wasthe insertion of sub rule (g) below Rule 32 (2) (f). By the saidnewly introduced sub rule, Sub Inspectors of Police (Taluk Police)were directed to be sent on other duty to serve AR/TSP for onemonth by rotation, for the purpose of filling up the vacanciescaused due to the en mass transfer of 503 persons from AR/TSP toTaluk Police. The other amendments related to the procedure.Following the aforesaid amendment, a Selection Committee wasconstituted and the eligible candidates who fulfilled theconditions were sent for practical training in the Districts.Subsequently, posting orders were also issued on 20.10.2005. Theposting orders actually referred to the posting of such transfereesas conversion and not reversion. Even as recently as in 2007, theGovernment appointed 120 Sub Inspectors of Police TSP in TalukPolice under G.O.Ms.No.1164, Home (Police III) Department, dated6.8.2007.23. The word "reduction" or "reversion" is not defined in theSpecial Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. It is notdefined even in the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State andSubordinate Services. The Fundamental Rules of the Government ofTamil Nadu also do not define the word "reduction" or "reversion".But the words "promotion" and "transfer" are defined under Rule 2(13) and Rule 2 (15A) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State andSubordinate Services as follows:-"(13) 'Promotion" means the appointment of amember of any category or grade of service or classof service to a higher category or grade of suchservice or class." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "15A. Transfer:- A member of a service is saidto be appointed by transfer when the appointment ismade from one category to another category in thesame service carrying identical scale of pay."24. Even the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police SubordinateServices defines the expression "recruited by transfer" under Rule1(11) as follows:-"(11) 'Recruitment by transfer' – A candidateis said to be 'recruited by transfer' to theservice:-(a) If at the time of his first appointmentthereto, he is either a full member or an approvedprobationer in the Tamil Nadu High Court Serviceor in any other service the rules for whichprescribe a period of probation for membersthereof; or (b) In case, at the time of his firstappointment thereto, is the holder of a post whichhas been included in another service but, forwhich no probation has been prescribed, if he hasput in that post satisfactory service for which noprobation has been prescribed, if he has put inthat post satisfactory service for a total periodof two years within a continuous period of threeyears.Explanation: Where these rules provide forrecruitment to the service to any class orcategory, thereof by transfer from any specifiedservice, class or category a candidate need notfor the purposes of such recruitment, be a fullmember or an approved probationer in the service,class or category so specified, provided he is afull member or an approved probationer in anyother service, class or category."25. Going by the definitions of the words "promotion" and"transfer", one can only conclude that the posting of a person fromone category to another, carrying the same scale of pay, can betermed only as a transfer and not reduction or reversion. There areseveral factors which determine the equation of status of variouscategories of posts. One of those factors is the pay scale of theposts concerned. In E.P.Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu {(1974) 4SCC 3}, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that equalpay will by itself, not be the sole decisive factor on the equationof status and responsibility of the post. But it was neverthelessheld in paragraph-22 of the said decision that "pay scale willprimarily show status and responsibilities of equal nature". Thelearned Senior Counsel for the petitioners agreed that posting aperson from TSP to AR/Local Police or posting a person from AR toLocal Police is not promotion. If posting a person from TalukPolice to AR/TSP is a reversion or reduction, then the posting of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ person from AR/TSP to Local Police should be considered to bepromotion. But admittedly, it is not so. Therefore the stand takenby the petitioners that the revision of allotment orders wouldamount to reversion or reduction in rank is not statutorily borneout to be correct. Both under the Fundamental Rules and under theSpecial Rules, appointment by transfer from one category to anotheror from one service to another service is permitted. If it is notpermissible, Rule 14-B of the Special Rules cannot have a place,where under the Constables get appointed first to TSP and then getposted to AR and later to Taluk Police. Similarly, Annexure-I tothe Special Rules also gives an indication about the permissibilityof such transfer.26. Though the petitioners admit that the scales of pay of allthe three categories of posts are the same, they contend that theyare governed by separate sets of rules and their promotionalprospects and duties and responsibilities are different. But thereare ever so many posts in each service, class and category whichcarry different duties and responsibilities, depending upon theplace or office in which the post is allocated. A Tahsildar postedin a Taluk Office to discharge the duties of a regular Tahsildar,has onerous duties and responsibilities, including powersexerciseable by him as Executive Magistrate. But when he is postedfor land acquisition, he exercises different powers and dischargesa completely different set of duties and responsibilities. Examplesof this nature galore in Government Service and hence the nature ofduties and responsibilities cannot also be the sole criteria todetermine if the posting of a person to a particular categoryamounts to reversion or reduction in rank. In so far as the adverseeffect on promotional prospects is concerned, the Supreme Court hasalready held in Anil Kumar Vitthal Shete and Others Vs. State ofMaharashtra {2006 (4) MLJ 1851} that "chances of promotion is not acondition of service and that the reduction of chances of promotionwould not amount to change in condition of service".27. The petitioners admit that the scales of pay of the threecategories of posts (Sub Inspectors in Taluk Police, Armed Reserveand Special Police) are just the same and their source of directrecruitment is through the same agency namely the Tamil NaduUniformed Services Recruitment Board. The direct recruitment to allthe three categories, always takes place through a common process.The Notification for recruitment does not spell out the number ofposts in each category. The Notification also does not call uponthe candidates to indicate any choice or preference of the categoryto which they apply. In recruitment to Group-I Services of theState of Tamil Nadu, the applicants are directed to indicate theirchoice to the various categories of posts and services such asDeputy Collectors, Deputy Superintendent of Police etc., though acommon selection takes place. But in the case of direct recruitmentof Sub Inspectors, the Notification does not provide the candidateswith a choice. The Notification merely states that the allotment tothe three categories of posts would be on the basis of the marks,after applying the rule of communal rotation. Therefore, thepetitioners are actually persons who have applied for considerationto any of the three categories of posts, in response to theNotification. The petitioners have not applied, making a specific https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ choice of the category to which their names are to be considered.Therefore the petitioners cannot really contend that theirallotment to one category and the subsequent revision of suchallotment, violated any of their vested rights. Since thecategories of posts are also of equal pay and status, thepetitioners cannot even term the revision of allotment as reversionor reduction of category. 28. The only point that the petitioners can validly advance isthat the respondents are bound by the Notification and makeallotments on the basis of the marks obtained, after applying thecommunal rotation. Such an argument will not be on the basis thatthere was reversion nor on the basis that there was anyinfringement of a vested right. It will be simply based upon thecommitment made in the Notification and the commitment of therespondent to act fairly. Therefore the impugned show cause noticeswill have to be tested only on the said principle. But before theimpugned show cause notices are tested on the said principle, it isnecessary to deal with the contentions raised by Mr.R.Thiagarajan,learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. FIRST CONTENTION:29. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioners is that the respondents are bound by the stand taken inthe first batch of writ petitions filed by the unsuccessfulcandidates, that everything was well with the selection process.Therefore according to the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioners, the attempt to revise the allotment orders on thebasis that there were some discrepancies, would amount toapprobating and reprobating and would also amount to taking thisCourt for a ride. 30. In support of his contention, Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learnedSenior Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention toparagraph-3 of the judgment of K.Venkataraman, J., in W.P.No.14482of 2007 batch of cases dated 20.11.2007, wherein the counteraffidavit of the respondents was extracted. In paragraph-3(d) and(g), of the said decision, rendered in the batch of cases filed bythe unsuccessful candidates, the learned Judge had extracted therelevant portions of the counter affidavit of the respondents asfollows:-"(d) The communal rotations as per the ordersin force have been correctly followed in theselection and the reservation for each communityincluding for the wards of the police personnel hasbeen duly taken into account.""(g) Quota allotted for each of the categorieshas been strictly followed. In fact, after thedirection by this Court, the selection list waspublished indicating each category and hence, therecannot be any grievance on the part of thepetitioners." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ After extracting the counter affidavit in paragraph-3 of thedecision and after projecting the grievance of the petitioners inparagraph-6, the learned Judge went on to discuss the issues oneafter another in paragraph-7. Paragraph-7(G)(1) of the decisionshows that the learned Judge instructed the Special GovernmentPleader to publish the selection list specifying each category andquota and that it was also complied with. Therefore while rejectingall the contentions of the writ petitioners and recording hisconclusions in paragraph-9 of the judgment, the learned Judgerecorded in paragraph-9(c) as follows:-"(c) The grievance of the petitioners that thepublication of selected candidates under eachcategory or quota was not done, can no more be agrievance, since after filing of the writpetitions, the Recruitment Board has published theresult of the selection candidates on each quota."By pointing out the above, Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counselfor the petitioners contended that the respondents cannot now takea different stand.31. However I am unable to countenance the said submission fortwo reasons, which are as follows:-(i) The above decision arose out of a dispute raised by thecandidates who were unsuccessful in the selection. The defencetaken by the respondents in the said case about the properadherence to the selection process and the communal rotation waswith reference to the challenge by the unsuccessful candidates.Therefore the said defence cannot operate as estoppel against therespondents even for revising the allotment made inter se among thesuccessful candidates.(ii) In any event, this contention (that the respondents werebound by the earlier stand) was available to the petitioners, whenthey themselves came up with a batch of writ petitions inW.P.Nos.11181 of 2008, challenging the revised allotment ordersissued by the Director General of Police and other authorities.Fortunately for the petitioners, their batch of writ petitionsW.P.Nos.11181 of 2008 etc., also came up before the very samelearned Judge who dismissed the batch of cases filed by theunsuccessful candidates. Therefore without going into any otherissue, the revised allotment orders could have been set aside onthe sole basis that the respondents were bound by the earlierstand. But the learned Judge did not allow the writ petitions ofthe petitioners herein on that basis. The learned Judge allowed thewrit petitions of the petitioners and set aside the revisedallotment orders only on two technical grounds viz., (i) that nonotice was issued in accordance with the principles of naturaljustice and (ii) that Government alone was competent under Rule 5of the Special Rules to revise the allotment orders. In otherwords, the first contention now raised by the petitioners that therespondents cannot revise the allotment orders in view of the standearlier taken by them, was either not raised or raised and deemedto have been rejected by the very same learned Judge who allowed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ their writ petitions and set aside the revised allotment ordersonly on two technical grounds. Therefore I am unable to accept thefirst contention of the petitioners.SECOND CONTENTION:32. The second contention of the petitioners is that underRule 5, the Government is empowered only to revise the list ofapproved candidates, but not the list of appointed candidates. Thiscontention is based upon the language employed in Rule 5 and thedefinition of the words "appointed to the service" and "approvedcandidate". 33. Rule 5 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu PoliceSubordinate Service reads as follows:-"5. Revision of list of approved candidates forappointment or promotion: Notwithstanding anythingcontained in these rules the State Government shallhave power to revise in any manner they considersuitable, any list of approved candidates, forappointment or promotion to any category or class ofthe service prepared by the Head of the Department,in exercise of the powers conferred on him by theserules."The phrase "appointed to the service" is defined under Rule 1 (1)as follows:-"(1) 'Appointed to the Service' a person issaid to be 'Appointed to the Service' when inaccordance with these rules or in accordance withthe rules applicable at the time, as the case maybe, he discharges for the first time the duties of apost borne on the cadre of the service or commencesthe probation, instruction or training prescribedfor members thereof."The phrase "approved candidate" is defined under Rule 1 (2) asfollows:-"(2) 'Approved Candidate' – Approved candidatemeans a candidate whose name appears in anauthoritative list of candidates approved forappointment to any class or category of the service.Explanation: The inclusion of a candidate'sname in any such list shall not confer on him anyclaim to appointment to the class or category of theservice."The phrase "member of the service" is defined under Rule 1 (8) asfollows:-"(8) 'Member of the Service' – 'Member of theService' means a person who has been appointed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the service and who has not retired or resigned,been removed or dismissed, been substantivelytransferred or reduced to another service or beendischarged otherwise than for want of a vacancy. Hemay be a probationer, an approved probationer or afull member of the service."34. It is true that the names of the petitioners were found ina list of candidates selected for appointment by the Tamil NaduUniformed Services Recruitment Board. Once the said list wasapproved for appointment, the list became a list of "approvedcandidates". But by virtue of the Explanation to Rule 1 (2), theinclusion of a candidate's name in any such list, did not confer onhim any claim to appointment to the class or category of theservice. However, the moment a person is appointed, from the listof approved candidates, he acquires certain rights. But it does notmean that once the list of approved candidates is operated andappointments made, the Government loses its control over such alist administratively.35. All that Rule 5 says is that the State Government shallhave the power to revise in any manner they consider suitable, anylist of approved candidates prepared by the Head of the Department.In other words, Rule 5 confers superintending and superveningpowers upon the Government to revise any list of approvedcandidates, irrespective of the fact that it was prepared by acompetent authority viz., the Head of the Department. It isneedless to point out that Government is not the appointingauthority for many posts. There are different authorities competentto prepare a list of approved candidates for appointment to variousposts, under Rule 4 (a) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu Stateand Subordinate Services, either by direct recruitment or bypromotion or by recruitment by transfer. Rule 5 of the SpecialRules makes it clear that the Government has the ultimate power torevise any list of approved candidates, prepared by any of thecompetent authorities including the Head of the Department. 36. Rule 5 is only the reservoir of power for the StateGovernment. It does not in any manner prescribe any restraint oftime for the Government to invoke the power. In other words, Rule 5does not contain a restriction that the power thereunder shall beused only before appointments are made from out of the list ofapproved candidates and not thereafter. There is nothing in Rule 5to indicate that the power of the Government to revise the list ofapproved candidates lapses, the moment appointments are made out ofthe list. If such an interpretation is given, the list of approvedcandidates prepared by the Head of the Department, cannot at all berevised by the Government, if appointments were made by the Head ofthe Department in pursuance of the approved list. Such aninterpretation would destroy the very power under Rule 5, as therewould always be a time gap between the approval of a list ofcandidates for appointment by the Head of the Department and theappointments made out of the list on the one hand and the noticetaken by the Government of such appointments on the other hand.Therefore I cannot accept the argument that Rule 5 cannot beinvoked after appointments are made from out of the list of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approved candidates. The list of approved candidates is the causeand the appointments made from out of the same, is the consequence.The power under Rule 5 would continue to be available to theGovernment, even after appointments are made from out of the listof approved candidates. Once the power is exercised, theappointment orders issued earlier would undergo a change. THIRD CONTENTION:37. The third contention of the petitioners is that theimpugned show cause notices disclose no material to enable thepetitioners to show cause. The show cause notices are incyclostyled format, containing a vague statement that there werediscrepancies in the application of communal rotation while makingallotments. Therefore the petitioners contend that there is nothingfor them to show cause against such a vague statement. 38. Though there is an element of justifiability in the abovecontention of the petitioners, it is not something which would makethe impugned show cause notices totally bad and liable to be setaside. As admitted by the petitioners and as seen from the decisionrendered in the first batch of cases filed by the unsuccessfulcandidates, the selection list has already been publishedcategorywise. Therefore the petitioners know or are supposed toknow the roaster point against which they are selected and theyalso know the cut off marks secured by them. Hence the problem nowposed by the petitioners can easily be resolved by directing theGovernment to publish a provisional revised list, beforeconsidering the objections of the petitioners and before issuingfinal revised list. 39. As stated earlier, the only point that the petitioners canvalidly make out against the proposed revision of allotment is thatthe respondents are bound to make allotment on the basis of themarks, subject to the rule of reservation, as committed in theNotification for recruitment. This is both on the basis that therespondents are bound by the Notification and also on the basis offairness and equality of treatment. The marks obtained by each ofthe selected candidates, is already made known to them. Theselected candidates know the community to which they belong. It isonly an application of a combination of these two factors to thelist of selected candidates that remains to be done, so that thecommitment made in the Notification is fulfilled. 40. In one of the affidavits filed by the respondents insupport of a vacate stay petition, it is stated by the respondentsthat the allotment made to 255 Sub Inspectors, required a revisionin view of the discrepancy in applying the rule of communalrotation under Rule 22 of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu Stateand Subordinate Services. In other words, the marks secured by thepetitioners are not proposed to be revised. What is sought to beundone, is a mistake in the allotment of some of them, in violationof the rule of reservation. If a person who has secured aparticular cut off mark was eligible only for allotment to ArmedReserve or TSP, on the basis of the rule of reservation, but hadbeen allotted to Taluk Police, then the mistake can certainly be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rectified. So long as the purpose of the present exercise is toplace the selected candidates in the appropriate positions thatthey deserve, as per the cut off mark and rule of reservation, theexercise cannot be found fault with. To ensure that this is thepurpose of the present exercise, the respondents can be directed topublish the revised list provisionally in the respective placeswhere all candidates are now undergoing training. As alreadypointed out, the final list of approved candidates is based onlyupon three variables viz., (i) the marks obtained by each candidate(ii) the community to which the candidate belongs and (iii) theroaster point. The first two variables are already known to theselected candidates, in so far as their individual selves areconcerned. The roaster point is actually as per Rule 22 of theGeneral Rules. But the selected candidates may not know the marksand the community of the other selected candidates and hence ifthis is made known, it will ensure transparency and adherence tothe Notification. CONCLUSION:41. In the light of the above discussions, the challenge tothe impugned show cause notices fails and the writ petitions areliable to be dismissed. However certain directions require to beissued, to ensure that the revision of allotment is as per themarks and the communal rotation, as enunciated in the Notificationfor recruitment. 42. Therefore all the writ petitions are disposed of with thefollowing directions:-(a) The Government is directed to publish, within a week, aprovisional consolidated revised list of allotment of candidates,in the respective places in which the candidates are undergoingtraining, furnishing details of all the selected candidates such as(i) name (ii) community (iii) marks obtained (iv) the allotmentalready made (v) the allotment proposed to be made either to TalukPolice or Armed Reserve or TSP and (vi) the communal roaster point.(b) Within one week of the publication of the aboveprovisional revised list, the petitioners as well as any personaggrieved by the placement in the provisional list, may file theirobjections with the Government.(c) The Government may thereafter pass appropriate orders,after considering the objections of the petitioners and others,either confirming the provisional revised list or modifying orwithdrawing the same.(d) As we have seen in paragraph-22 above, the Government havepassed a series of orders from the year 1996, transferring SubInspectors from Armed Reserve to Taluk Police. Such transfers hadtaken place en mass, on representations received from theemployees. Every time such transfers were ordered, an amendment tothe rules followed. This shows that there is always a clamour forposting in Taluk Police. This is not new to the Police Department.Experience shows that there are posts in every Department, such as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Enforcement Wing and Check Posts in Commercial Taxes Department,regular postings in Taluk Offices in Revenue Department, posting ofteachers in the hostels in Adi Dravida Welfare Department, etc.,which are much sought after. But the reasons for the same aredistressing to note. Taking note of the craving of the employeesfor such "plum postings" (as they are known in the ExecutiveCircles) and the underlying motive, those Departments such asCommercial Taxes Department, Revenue Department and Adi DravidaWelfare Department, have incorporated provisions in their specialrules, which provide for such posting by rotation. If the samepattern is followed even in the Police Department, such problems asthe one on hand, may not arise in future. The respondents may takenote of the same, to avoid future disputes.43. All the writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms.No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarSvnTo1. Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2. Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004.+ 1 c.c. to M/s. G. Bala & Daisy, Advocates. S.R.No.3366. Common order inW.P.Nos.29709, 29710, 30338 of 2008 and W.P.Nos.89 and 90 of 2009SSN (CO)GSK 28.01.2009.