P. Pugalenthi vs State of Tamil Nadu

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—This writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation, is filed by the petitioner, who is an Advocate, challenging the order in G.O.Ms. No. 805 Home (Pol. V) Department, dated 7.10.2013, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, by which the Government constituted a Committee for considering the cases of accelerated promotion of police personnel, who have performed the acts of extra-ordinary bravery and valour, when engaged in their efforts to apprehend and deal with hardcore criminals, terrorists and other anti-social elements, who achieved operational success. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that though the Government order relates to the grant of accelerated promotion to police personnel, by granting such accelerated promotion, the police are encouraged to take the law into their own hands on the expectation that they will be rewarded for showing extra ordinary bravery in dealing with criminals/terrorists, etc., and such encouragement given to the police personnel will affect the public interest, and therefore the writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation is maintainable.

The impugned Government Order was issued by the Government constituting a Committee to examine the cases of awarding accelerated promotion to police personnel and submit its recommendations to the Government for issuing suitable orders. The accelerated promotion, which would be granted to the Police Personnel in accordance with the Government Order and to those who are in service, is definitely a service matter of police personnel. It is well settled law as that in service matters public interest litigation is not maintainable, except in case of issuing Writ of Quo-warranto, if there is violation of law (statutory provision).

In the decision reported in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, in paragraph 13 the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus,

Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others Etc. Etc., ; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, ; and Neetu Vs. State of Punjab and Others, ). The said decision was followed by the Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (N.P.V., J.) was a party, in W.P. No. 27569 of 2013, which was also filed by the very same petitioner, by order dated 9.10.2013. The Division Bench in the said case also held that the writ petition filed by an advocate (petitioner herein), by way of Public Interest Litigation, questioning the promotion of certain police personnel, is not maintainable.

The contention of the petitioner that if such accelerated promotion is allowed to be given to police personnel, they will take the law into their own hands and indulge in encounters, indiscriminately cannot be sustained, if any police personnel indulges in fake encounter, or use force unreasonably, the Constitutional Courts have taken serious view of the matter not only to punish the concerned police personnel under IPC offences, but also awarded compensation to the victims. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Kishore Singh and Others, held that a police personnel, who is custodian of preserving law and order, if indulges in custodial violence/fake encounter or using unreasonable force while engaged in their duty, they should be imposed with harsh punishment than the ordinary persons. Paragraph-24 of the said judgment reads thus:

In our opinion, policemen who commit criminal acts deserve harsher punishment than other persons who commit such acts, because it is the duty of the policemen to protect the people, and not break the law themselves, if the protector becomes the predator civilized society will cease to exist. As the Bible says, "if the salt has lost its flavour, wherewith shall it be salted?" (Matthew, 5, Mark 9.50 and Luke 14.34-35), or as the ancient Romans used to say, "who will guard the Praetorian guards?

Thus, the law on this aspect is well settled. Consequently, the apprehension of the petitioner that the impugned order of the Government dated 7.10.2013 will induce policemen to commit crime for getting accelerated promotion, cannot be countenanced. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.