AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner-G. Saraswathy, seeks a Writ of Certioraried Mandamus calling for the records of the Respondents
declaring the Petitioner''s date of ''B'' List as 21.02.1999 passed by the first Respondent herein in his Memorandum Rc. No.
258415/NGB/VII(1)/98 dated 24.04.2001 and the Memorandum of the second Respondent herein passed in his C. No. A3/25117/98, R.C. No.
205/2001 dated 09.05.2001 and the order of the third Respondent herein passed in his D.O.N.476/2001, A1(1)/516701/98, dated 19.05.2001
and quash the same insofar as the Petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the Respondents herein to regularize the services of the
Petitioner and declare the ''B'' List in the cadre of Women Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 07.11.1993 with all consequential monetary
and service benefits.
The Petitioner was directly appointed as Head Constable on 11.02.1981. She was temporarily promoted as Women Sub Inspector of Police
under Rule 39(a) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules on 05.11.1993. The Petitioner was one among 80 Women Sub Inspectors
of Police, who were promoted on 05.11.1993. All of them were promoted based on their seniority. In the case of male Head Constables, they
have to face the selection process, namely, Written Test, Drill Test and Viva voce, conducted by the Range Promotion Board. In the case of
Women Head Constables, the promotion is not based on selection. However, Women Head Constables were also subjected to selection process
by adhoc Rules framed during the year 1997 which came into effect on 28.11.1997.
It is seen that the Director General of Police sought clarification as to regularization of 80 Women Sub Inspectors who were promoted on
05.11.1993. He sought clarification as to whether the regularization is from the date of their original officiation. The Director General of Police
sought clarification, since the Government introduced the selection process for the Women Head Constables during 1990 and Women Constables
were directed to appear for the test conducted by the Range Promotion Board. The same was put to challenge in a Batch of cases in O.A. Nos.
1966/92, 1968/92, 5217/92 and 3677/92 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal granted stay
for conducting the test for Women Head Constables to become Women Sub Inspector of Police. In such circumstances, the Director General of
Police sought clarifications. The Government in its clarificatory letter No. 1140 dated 19.10.2000 stated that 80 Women Head Constables, who
were promoted as Sub Inspectors of Police temporarily, could be regularized in the promoted post from the date of their officiation. It is further
stated that certain amendments were issued to the Ad hoc Rules of Women Police Wing in G.O. Ms. No. 1730, Home (Pol.III) Department
dated 28.11.1997 introducing selection process for Women Head Constable and the same was not challenged. Therefore, the 80 Women Head
Constables, who were promoted prior to the aforesaid G.O should be promoted from the date of their officiation. But the first Respondent passed
impugned order dated 05.12.2000, stating that the Petitioner could be promoted on regular basis only with effect from 20.02.1999 on completion
of training that was given to Women Sub Inspector of Police during 1999. According to the Petitioner, the impugned order is contrary to the
aforesaid Government Letter dated 19.10.2000.
The first Respondent passed an order dated 05.12.2000 directing the second Respondent to regularize the services of Women Sub Inspectors
of Police who were promoted prior to 28.11.1997 from the date of officiation in terms of the Government letter No. 1140, Home Department,
dated 19.10.2000. Based on the directions of the first Respondent, the second Respondent passed an order dated 04.04.2001 regularizing the
services of the Petitioner with effect from 07.11.1993. While so, the third Respondent also passed consequential order dated 19.04.2001. Based
on the order passed by the first Respondent, the Petitioner was regularized as Women Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 07.11.1993.
While so, the first Respondent passed the impugned order dated 24.04.2001 that the Petitioner including the other Women Sub Inspector of
Police who were promoted temporarily under Rule 39(a) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules could be regularized with effect from
21.02.2009. It is stated that the Women Sub Inspectors of Police have completed their six months training on 21.02.2009. The Petitioner has
sought to quash the aforesaid order dated 20.04.2001 of the first Respondent.
The Respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. It is stated that the Petitioner had undergone six months training under Rule 18(e)
of Special rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services and the six months training period came to an end on 20.02.1999 and she was
successful in the training. Therefore, the regularization could take place only on the completion of the training.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.
The Petitioner was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1993 under Rule 39 (a) of Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service
Rules. During the year 1993 and prior to 1993, Woman Head Constables were not subjected to any selection process for promotion to the post
of Woman Sub Inspector of Police. The male Head Constables were selected for promotion as Sub Inspectors as per Special Rule 18(a) of Tamil
Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules and they should undergo selection process which is conducted by Range Promotion Board. That is, they
have to undergo Written Test, Drill Test and Viva Voce.
As far as the promotion for Women Head Constables to the post of Sub Inspector of Police is concerned, Women Head constables were
promoted without subjecting them to the aforesaid tests and it was based on seniority, as per the adhoc rules. The minimum requirement for
women Head Constables for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector is that they should have rendered four years service as Head Constable. But
an executive decision was taken by the first Respondent/Director General of Police during 1990 to conduct tests for women Head Constables also
as in the case of Male Head Constables. Since the same is contrary to the ad hoc rules, it was put to challenge by the women Head Constables by
filing batch of cases before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal granted an order of interim stay on
27.07.1992 and 19.11.1992 in Original Application Nos. 196/92, 1968/92, 5217/92 and 3677/92 for conducting tests for promotion of Women
Head Constable to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Under such circumstances, without facing the tests, the Petitioner and 79 others were
promoted as Sub Inspector of Police on 05.11.1993. However, doubt arose to the first Respondent as to from what they should be regularized.
The Government by letter No. 1140, Home Department dated 19.10.2000 had clarified that the 80 Women Head Constables were promoted as
Sub Inspector of Police, before the amendments were issued to the ad hoc rules in G.O.(Ms). No. 1730, Home Department dated 20.11.1997
and therefore the 80 Women Sub Inspectors including the Petitioner could be regularized with effect from the date of officiation. The following
passage of Government letter (Ms) No. 1140, dated 19.10.2000 is extracted hereunder:
2) The proposal for regularization of the services of 80 Women Sub Inspectors of Police, who were temporarily promoted as Sub Inspectors of
Police from the date of their original officiation, sent therein, has been examined by the Government. It is seen that as against the provision of 4
years'' experience in the post of Women Head Constable prescribed in Rule 5 of the Ad hoc Rules for Women constables, to make them eligible
for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police, executive decision was taken by the Director General of Police during 1990 to conduct a selection test
for the Women H.C.s to consider their cases for promotion as Women Sub Inspectors of Police on par with Men Head Constables as per Rule
18(e) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Rules, without making any such provision in the ad hoc rules governing the Women
Police. This decision has been challenged by certain Women Police Constables before the Tribunal in Original Application Numbers 1966/92,
1968/92, 5217/92 and 3677/92. The Tribunal, in their orders dated 27.07.1992 and 19.11.1992 has issued stay to postpone the test and if the
test is conducted the result should be withheld in view of the absence of specific provisions in the adhoc rules for the Women Police. The
amendments issued to the Adhoc rules to Women Police in G.O. Ms. No. 1730, home Department dt.20.11.1997 has not been challenged in any
Original Applications. Further, the amendments issued in the said Government order have been given effect from the date of issue of the said order.
The promotion of Women Head Constables are temporary Sub Inspectors of Police as per the adhoc rule existing prior to 28.11.1997 is
therefore, in order. The stay granted by the Tribunal in the Original Applications, referred to above, will no way affect the promotion of the
Women Head Constables as Sub Inspectors of Police promoted prior to 28.11.1997, who satisfied the ad hoc rules provision existing prior to
issue of G.O. Ms. No. 1730, Home Department, dated 28.11.1997.
In the circumstances stated above, there may not be any objections in regularizing the services of the temporary Women Sub Inspectors of
Police promoted prior to 28.11.1997 and it is not necessary to wait till the disposal of the pending Original Applications by the Tribunal.
I am, accordingly, directed to request you take necessary action to regularize the services of the Women Sub Inspectors of Police promoted
prior to 28.11.1997.
Based on the same, the first Respondent passed an order dated 05.12.2000, regularizing the services of 80 Women Head Constables who
were promoted as Sub Inspector of Police from the date of their officiation. The Petitioner was also one among them. Consequently, the order was
passed by the second Respondent/Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 04.04.2001. As far as the Woman Sub Inspectors of Police, who
were serving under the third Respondent concerned, further orders were passed by the third Respondent. By the further order dated 19.04.2001,
the Petitioner was regularized as Women Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 07.11.1993. While so the impugned order was passed on
24.04.2001 reversing the aforesaid order. In my considered view that the order dated 24.04.2001 of the first Respondent is contrary to the
aforesaid Government Order in letter No. 1140, Home Department dated 19.10.2000. The Government categorically directed to regularize the
services of the Women Sub Inspectors of Police who were promoted prior to 20.11.1997 from the date of their original officiation. Accordingly,
the orders dated 05.12.2000 were passed by the first Respondent and consequent orders were also passed by the second and third Respondents
as stated above.
But the impugned order was passed without notice to the Petitioner, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, as stated
above, the impugned order was passed in clear violation of the Government letter No. 1140 dated 19.10.2000. The impugned order proceeds on
the basis that the Women Sub Inspectors shall undergo training in Police training College as per Rule 18(e) of special rule for Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Services Rules. But the first Respondent is not correct in fixing the date of completion of training for regularization of the Petitioner and
other similar other persons without taking into consideration the Government letter No. 1140 dated 19.10.2000. The temporary Women Head
Constables were sent for training after six years, instead of sending for training in the year 1993 immediately after being promoted. It was not the
fault of the Petitioner. Further, the same could not be compared with the promotion of Men Sub Inspector of Police. In the case of the promotion
of Woman Sub Inspector of Police, they did not undergo selection process. The Government took into consideration the entirety of the
circumstances and Respondents were directed to regularize the Women Sub Inspectors promoted prior to G.O. Ms. No. 1730, Home
Department dated 28.11.1997 with effect from the date of their officiation. In these circumstances, the first Respondent is not correct in violating
the order of the Government letter No. 1140 dated 19.10.2000. Therefore, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the Writ Petition is
allowed. No costs.