Prince Jothi Lawrence vs The Director General of Police, The Deputy Inspector General of Police and The Superintedent of Police

M. Jaichandren, J.—The Petitioner has stated that he had been selected, initially, for being appointed as a police constable, in the year,

1976. Later, he was upgraded in service, as a Grade I police constable, in the year, 1994. After a long tenure of service of about nearly 18 years,

he had been upgraded as a head constable, during the year, 1999. However, his name had not been considered for further promotion, as a Sub

Inspector of Police, in the panel for the year 2002-2003. In such circumstances, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third Respondent, it has been stated that, as per Rule 3(d)(iii) of the Special Rules for the Tamil

Nadu Police Subordinate Services, the head constables fit for promotion as sub-inspectors of police must have served as head constables, either in

a permanent or in an officiating capacity, for a period of not less than four years on the first day, in the month of July of the relevant year. As such,

the Petitioner had not completed four years of service as a head constable, as on 1.7.2002, which was the crucial date. The Petitioner had

completed four years of service, as a head constable, only on 21.7.2003. Therefore, the name of the Petitioner had not been considered for the

drawl of ''C'' list of head constables (local) fit for promotion as sub inspector of police (local), for the year 2002-2003.

It had also been stated that, as per Rule 3(b)(i) of the Special Rules, promotion to the post of sub inspector of police shall be made on the

grounds of merit and ability. Seniority being considered only in cases where merit and ability are approximately equal.

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels

appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner has not shown

sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief''s, as prayed for by the Petitioner, in the present writ petition.

The Petitioner has not been in a position to show that, as per the service rules applicable to him, he was qualified to be included in the list of

head constables fit for being promoted as Sub Inspectors of Police, for the year 2002-2003.

It is noted that, as per Rule 3(d)(iii) of the Special Rules applicable to the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, the Head constables fit for

promotion as sub inspectors of police must have served as a head constable, either in a permanent or in an officiating, for a period of not less than

4 years on the first day in the month of July of the relevant year. The Petitioner had not completed four years of service, as on 1.7.2002, which

was the crucial date for being added in the list of head constables (local) fit for promotion as sub inspectors of police (local), for the year 2002-

2003. In fact, the Petitioner had completed four years of service, as a head constables, only on 21.7.2003. As such, the writ petition is devoid of

merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.