AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The Government of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board are the Appellants in
this appeal. This appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P. No. 270 of 2009, dated 12.08.2009.
The third Appellant conducted selection for the post of Grade-II Police Constable and a notification dated 12.03.2009 was published calling for
applications from eligible candidates. In the notification, 10% of the vacancies were reserved to be filled up from dependents of serving Police
Personnel including Ministerial Staff and the Wards/dependents of retired, deceased and medically invalidated Police Personnel, provided that
10% of the above 10% quota shall be filled up from among the dependents of the serving Ministerial Staff.
The Respondent/writ Petitioner submitted his application seeking benefit of the Special Reservation under Wards category by stating that his
father Mr. R. Vellaichami is a senior photographer in the Police Department and therefore, he is eligible to be considered under the Special
Reservation Quota. Since, the Respondent/writ Petitioner''s application was not considered, he filed W.P. No. 270/2009, praying for a writ of
Mandamus to direct the Appellants herein to consider the claim for the post of Grade II Police Constable under the Special Reservation category.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the first Appellant by letter dated 12.02.2009, stated that the writ Petitioner does not fall under the
category of serving or retired Police Personnel of the Police Department as noted in G.O. Ms. No. 834, dated 10.09.2001 and is not eligible for
recruitment under the 10% wards quota. Therefore, the Respondent/writ Petitioner sought for amendment of the prayer in the writ petition and this
Court by order dated 12.08.2009, permitted the amendment of the prayer into one of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the letter dated
12.02.2009 and to consider the claim of the Respondent/writ Petitioner for the post of Grade II Police Constable under the Special Reservation
category. (Wards Quota).
The Appellants filed counter affidavit, resisting the claim of the Respondent/writ Petitioner by stating that the Respondent/writ Petitioner''s father
being a senior photographer does not come under the category of Police Personnel nor a Ministerial Staff and he comes under the category of
Technician, for whom no Special Reservation has been provided for. The learned Judge by the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2009 rejected the
contentions of the Appellants and allowed the writ petition as against which this appeal has been preferred. The learned Government Pleader
appearing for the Appellants would contend that the Special Reservation Quota of 10% cannot be extended to person, who is holding the post of
senior photographer as the post comes under the category of technical personnel and the Government order by which this Special Reservation was
created is applicable only to Police Personnel and Ministerial Staff and therefore, the order calls for interference.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/writ Petitioner would strenuously contend that the amendments have been made to the
Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service Rules by way of G.O. Ms. No. 2251, dated 08,10.1990 and such amendment
came into force with effect from 08.02.1984 and that the appointing authority of senior photographers in Madras City Police is the Commissioner
of Police, Madras, for senior photographers attached to Special Branch, it is the Deputy Inspector General of Police and photographers attached
to Special Branch and in Districts, it is the Superintendent of Police. Therefore, it is contended that the Respondent/writ Petitioner is entitled to be
considered under the Special Reservation Quota.
We have heard the counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record, including the writ petition and the typed set of papers
filed in the writ petition.
The Government by G.O. Ms. No. 834, Home Department, dated 10.09.2001, directed reservation of 10% quota in recruitment to the post of
Police Constable Grade-II for dependents of serving Police Personnel including Ministerial Staff and the Wards/dependents of retired, deceased
and medically invalidated Police Personnel, so as to boost the morale and strengthen the loyalty to the force. Subsequently, it was clarified by the
first Appellant on 08.04.2003, stating that serving Police Personnel would include Ministerial Staff of Police Department and this came to be
reiterated by Government letter dated 11.01.2008. In the notification issued by the third Appellant dated 12.03.2008, calling for applications for
recruitment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable, this Special Reservation for Wards of service Police Personnel and Ministerial Staff was
included. The Respondent/writ Petitioner participated in the selection and claimed that he is entitled to be considered under the 10% Special
Reservation, since the Respondent/writ Petitioner''s father was a senior photographer in the Police Department. The first Appellant by the
impugned communication dated 12.12.2009 rejected the Respondent/writ Petitioner''s claim.
As could be seen from the G.O. Ms. No. 2251, dated 08.10.1990, which was issued, amending the Special Rules, the expression
Photographer attached to the Special Branch Criminal Investigation etc.,"" came to be substituted by the words ""Senior Photographers,
Photographers, Senior Photographic attendants and Junior Photographic attendants in Police Department"". Appointment to the post of Senior
Photographer is by promotion from the post of Photographers in Police Department from the approved panel. The appointment to the post of
Photographer is, by direct recruitment or by promotion from the category of Senior Photographic Attendants in Police Department. The appointing
authority for the respective post was the Commissioner of Police/Deputy Inspector of Police or the Superintendent of Police.
Further, it is seen that the selection to the post is conducted by the State Selection Committee consisting of the Inspector General of Police,
Deputy Inspector General of Police and other Senior Police Personnel. Further, the panel of eligible candidates is also prepared by the Police
Department. This amendment to the service Rule, though notified on 26.10.1999, was given retrospective effect from 08.02.1984. It is further
seen that the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1112, Home Department dated 21.02.2002 upgraded the post of Senior Photographers as Technical
Officers (Photography).
In the typed set of papers filed in the writ petition, the Respondent/writ Petitioner has annexed the orders of transfer and posting issued to the
Respondent/writ Petitioner''s father, passed by the Superintendent of Police and the award for meritorious service were also given to the writ
Petitioner''s father and he has also won various cash rewards for distinguished service. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Respondent/writ
Petitioner''s father is not a person serving in the Police Department and cannot be stated to be not a ""Police Personnel"". No Rule or Regulations
has been placed before this Court, wherein, the term ""Police Personnel"" has been defined. Admittedly, the post of Senior Photographer is a regular
post in the Police Department and recruitment is being done by the Police Department and have been recognized and treated as Police Personnel
right through. Therefore, the hyper technical approach of the Appellants adopted in this matter cannot be countenanced. It is further to be noted
that this 10% reservation was also extended to the Ministerial Staff in the Police Department by way of clarification issued on 28.04.2003, which
was reiterated on 11.01.2008. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the Appellants denying such benefit to the ward of a
Senior Photographer of the Police Department.
During the course of argument, the learned Government Pleader very fairly brought to the notice of this Court, a recent Government order in
G.O. Ms. No. 67, Home Department, dated 22.01.2010, in which it is stated that persons working in various branches of Police Department like
Sweepers, Office Assistants, Photographers, Shorthand Reporters, Finger Print Staff, Technical Service Executive Staff, be included for the
benefit of the Ward-cum-dependent quota. The learned Government Pleader would submit that by virtue of this Government order in G.O. Ms.
No. 67, dated 22.01.2010, this 10% reservation could be extended to the other categories including photographers in future selections and this
order cannot be given retrospective effect. We are unable to agree with the learned Government Pleader. At the first instance, it is to be noted that
the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 67, dated 22.01.2010 has not created a separate quota in respect of the category of persons such as
photographers, Office Assistants etc, but this Government order is a clarification to the earlier Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 834, dated
10.09.2001. This is evident from a perusal of the Government order, wherein the Director General of Police has sought for clarification, since
several writ petitions were filed before this Court raising the same issue. Therefore, G.O. Ms. No. 67, should be treated as a clarification to the
earlier Government order and the Respondent/writ Petitioner is thus entitled to be considered under the 10% Special Reservation Quota reserved
for Wards of Police Personnel.
In view of the above reasons, we find there are no good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge allowing the writ
petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. Time for compliance of the direction issued in the writ petition is extended by three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no
orders as to costs.