police seniority case
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
W.A. NO. 732 OF 2022
Saraswathy and 52 Others …Appellants
VS
Paranthaman and 49 Others …Respondents-1 to 50
State of Tamilnadu and 2 Others …Respondents-51to 53
WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE CONTESTING
RESPONDENTS - 1 to 50 - The above Respondents submit that the main issue involved in the above writ appeal is one of inter-se seniority at the level of fixing it in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police based on marks secured by both the Appellants and Contesting Respondents- 1 to 50 at Police Recruitment School (PRS), when they were appointed as Grade-II Police constables during the selection year 1995-96.
- The respondents-1 to 50 do not pray for altering the position from the stage of Grade-II P.C. They pray to set right the seniority only from the stage of S.I. of Police but the basis to do so can NOW be drawn only from marks secured at the police training school [ PRS ] at the time of appointment. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the appellants have wrongly understood the purport of the learned single judge’s order as if seniority should be re-altered from the stage of Grade-II PC. If it is set-right now, it will provide justice to both the parties while promoting them to the post of Inspector of Police, for several respondents secured higher marks at PRS than the appellants and vice versa is also there. Due to the wrong understanding by the department that those who were sent for training in the 1st batch should be considered as seniors than that of the 2nd batch, wrong promotions were given to the 1st batch candidates in the year 2008, for the post of S.I. of police. Thereafter, in the year 2018, respondents were promoted belatedly for no fault on their part. Within 3 years, the respondents made representations as evidenced on pages 33-34, 37-40, & 47-51 of respondents’ main typed set. The law on the point is that—
a) if candidates are selected by way of a single selection on merits through
one notification, then all of them belong to the same batch, no matter on
what date they were sent for training in different batches on the ground of
administrative convenience;
b) Their seniority shall be based on the date of selection and not from the date
of training;
c) Their inter-se seniority shall be fixed only based on marks secured at
Police Training College/ School ( for PC, its called school; for S.I, its College ).
- Thus, the impugned order has been passed following the dictum laid down by the Apex Court ( Pages 59-73 of main typed set) , Division Bench of our High Court ( pages 52-56 Para 8 of main typed set ), consistent past practice of the department through various G.O.s / Proceedings ( Pages 74-80, 81-91, 99-106 and 107-108 of main typed set ) and as per Rule 24(d) of Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. As regards G.O.s are concerned, Pages 41-46, and 7-10 etc may be referred. In fact, the DB order in W.A. 1581 of 2010 ( Page 52-56 of main typed set ) and 2015(14) SCC 221 were very much in existence when the respondents were promoted in the year 2018. BESIDES, FROM THE STAGE OF Gr-II PC to Grade-I PC all were promoted at the same time. This apart, ON 18/3/2002, ALL OF THEM WERE PROMOTED AS HAVILDARS / HEAD CONSTABLES. It is only at the stage of S.I., wrong / pre-promotions were given to appellants though they secured low marks in PRS than the respondents. HENCE THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY AT ALL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER.
Several similar orders have been implemented in the past. - Further, it is submitted that the total strength for granting such inter-se seniority in Tamilnadu Spl. Police or Category-III between appellants and the respondents is just 161 persons only, as even evidenced by RTI reply found on Page 4 of the addl. Typed set of respondents and as per the counter affidavit of official respondents filed in this writ appeal. The fancy figure of 21790 etc is nothing an imagination of the appellants and hence such submission may please be ignored.
- The respondents do not canvass for reducing or recovering the salary from the appellants. They do not also seek backwages either.
- The operative portion in Para 22 of the impugned order [found on Page 259-260 of Appellants’ typed set ] would prove this submission.
“…The respondents are therefore directed to give effect to this order
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order with consequential benefits to persons who scored higher
marks in the Police Recruitment School than the persons who were
earlier promoted based on the marks obtained by them at the time
of their initial selection. The respondents are also directed to notionally
promote the petitioners with effect from the date on which their batch
mates were promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police in the year 2008…”
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that no interference is required in this Writ Appeal.
- To recapitulate, the department was under the impression that (i) all the 1st batch persons secured higher marks than the 2nd batch candidates; (ii) the 1st batch should be considered senior since they were sent for training on 16/4/97 while the 2nd batch were sent on 31/10/1997; (iii) because appellants were sent first for training, they are seniors to respondents.
FIRSTLY, even in the selection process marks, those who were sent in the 2nd Batch / Phase-II, secured more marks than those sent in the 1st Batch / Phase-I, as revealed in the RTI Act reply found on Pages 57 and 58 of main typed set. Hence, the above plea is also factually incorrect.
SECONDLY, as regards, the inter-se-seniority between 1st Batch and 2nd Batch, our Division Bench and the Apex Court categorically held that inter-se-seniority shall be granted / fixed only on the basis of marks secured at PRS. In the case reported (2015) 14 SCC 221, the SC clarified the position that seniority based on the marks obtained at the time of selection process cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Official Respondents 51-53 are bound to revise the seniority list based on the marks secured at PRS by both batches.
THIRDLY, the above position of law has been implemented by the Department itself by way of the D.G.P., proceedings dt.19.07.18 and 18.09.18. The earlier proceedings dated 19.07.18 relates to appointment of Women Sub-Inspector for the recruitment year 2001-2002. On 15.09.2004, the 1st Batch of Women Sub-Inspector were sent for training and in the 2nd Batch and subsequent batches nearly 72 Women Sub-Inspectors were sent for training on 25.10.2005 (67), 14.05.2007 (4) and 20.12.13(1). The 2nd Batch candidates were initially disqualified on medical grounds and also on account of pregnancy and so on. After completing their training, the 2nd Batch candidates sought inter-se-seniority with that of 1st Batch. In Sl.No.6 and 8 under the column “Objections”, the Department itself granted such inter-se-seniority based on marks secured at PRS as held in W.A.1581 of 2010 dt.05.09.11 and (2015) 14 SCC 221.
In another Proceedings of D.G.P. dt.18.09.18, such inter-se seniority was granted to Sub-Inspectors recruited for the year 2006 after a gap of 10 years. On 18.01.08, majority of the Sub Inspector recruits for the year 2006 was sent for training. Certain others were sent for training upto the year 2014 but for whom the inter-se-seniority based on the marks at training college was granted even after 10 years in the year 2018. For Example: Sl.No.34 under 20% dept. candidate T.Vannamamalai was sent for training on 21.03.11 while
majority of their entire batch was sent only on 18.01.2008. By the said proceedings dt.18.09.18, Sl.No.34 – T.Vannamamalai was placed above many others, since he secured higher marks in PTC. Similar is the approach in Sl.No.43 – K.Hemanth Kumar.
Likewise, under the category – III – Open Candidates , Sl.No.10 – A. Pappathi was sent for training on 15.05.2014 while all others were sent on 18.01.18, since she secured higher marks than that of her batchmates and though sent for training after 6 years, she has been placed in Sl.No.12 after a gap of 10 years.
FOURTHLY, by way of G.O.MS.No.556 dt.31.12.2020, the inter-se-seniority of those recruited for the year 1997-98 was re-arranged after a period of 20 years. Though their 2nd Batch was sent for training on 22.05.2000, those sent for training upto the year 2007 was favourably considered. The inter-se-seniority is granted after 20 years in the year 2022 by passing the above G.O. Ms.No. 556 followed by the implementation Order through D.G.P. Proceedings on 30.01.2021.
FIFTHLY, again in March 2022, a Woman PC was given inter-se-seniority based on the PRS marks by the Order dt.18.03.2022 while she was sent for training on 17.02.14. Though recruited for the year 2007-08 as Grade-II PC, she was found pregnant by the Medical Board and hence, after delivery of the child, she was appointed on 17.02.14. Based on her representation, 27.06.2019, she has been given inter-se-seniority with her batchmates for the recruitment year 2007-2008 as per Rule 24(d) of TN Special Police Subordinate Service (TNSPSS) Rules, after a lapse of 11 years.
Thus, it becomes crystal clear that Department itself has been continuously following this dictum for two decades by granting the inter-se-seniority based on the marks secured at the PRS / College.
SIXTHLY, by way of G.O.MS.No.534 dt.06.07.09, those selected for the year 1997-1998 but sent for training in the 2004 were granted inter-se-seniority in the above manner. Also, by way of G.O.MS.No.239 dt.08.08.11, those selected for the year 1997-1998 but sent for training upto the year 2007 were given seniority on par with their original batchmates.
SEVENTHLY, Rule 24 (d) of TNPSS states that the seniority of PCs appointed after 01.07.1997 shall be determined with reference to the marks obtained by them in final examination conducted at their Recruitment School. Thus, it is evident that even prior to the above Division Bench and SC Judgements, the Rule Position has been in favour of the Respondents only. Had the Official Respondents-51-53 applied the above Rule Position correctly, the entire loss of career opportunities as well as the present legal entanglement could have been avoided fully.
- All that these Respondents respectfully submit is that though Rule 24(d) of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 stipulates that such seniority shall be fixed based on marks secured at the PRS; that though the Division Bench of our High Court held in W.A. 1581 of 2010 that for fixing seniority only the date of selection is material and not the date of appointment and as regards the inter-se seniority it shall be granted on the basis of marks secured at PRS; that though the Apex Court reiterated the above position in (2015) 14 SCC 221 besides holding that fixation of seniority based on marks obtained at the time of selection process has to be negated but only marks secured at PRS; that though the Official Respondents- 51 to 53 themselves implemented the above dictum laid down by the Apex Court and our High Court by way of issuing two Govt. Orders and Three separate Proceedings of D.G.P., stated supra, by which inter-se seniority has been granted after 12, 7, 11, and 22 years after appointing them, yet it was omitted to be followed
in the case of these respondents only. ( Such seniority is being followed by the Govt. Respondents in all other cases as well ). However, wholly discussing these legal aspects, the Learned Single Judge allowed the
impugned W.P. No. 14410 of 2020 with a direction only to grant notional seniority in the post of S.I. of Police by re-arranging their inter-se seniority on the lines of Apex Court order by taking into account the marks secured at PRS.
THE PRECISE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE RESPONDENTS – 1-50 IS AS FOLLOWS:-
“The Respondents-1 to 50 would be satisfied if their inter-se seniority is fixed as S.I. of Police without back wages/salary by granting notional seniority to them from the year 2008 during which time the Appellants were promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police, based on marks secured by all the candidates at Police Recruitment School [PRS] upon having been appointed as Grade-II Police Constables in the year 1997” [ as it exists, the inter-se seniority is fixed as per marks given in the selection process only and not on PRS marks as laid down by the Courts of Law ]. - It is significant to submit that no “C-List showing the respective seniority position of the parties herein was drawn from 2008 until the year 2018”, though the Respondents are required to draw the C-List every year. Therefore, only when it is drawn can contesting Respondents come to know their seniority position. Even in the 1st Batch “C-List drawn for the year 2009-2010”, the Appellants are shown from Sl.No.39 upto Sl.No.105 (K. Sreedevan). From Sl.No.106, the 2nd Batch sent for training on 31.10.1997 is shown subsequently. In the Column No.5 earmarked as “PRS Final Marks”, Sl.No.44 is shown to have secured 377, Sl.No.42 and 43 secured 382 marks whereas Sl.No.110 of the 2nd batch is shown to have secured 388 marks, Sl.No.110 is also 388 marks and Sl.No.139 is shown to have secured 403marks, Sl.No. 140 secured marks, and Sl.No.142 and
143 secured 395 marks and so on. Thus it becomes crystal clear that over and above those sent for training in the 1st batch on 16.04.97 due to administrative convenience had secured less marks than those sent in the 2nd Batch on 31.10.1997. Therefore, if the seniority is re-arranged as per PRS marks, it will show proper seniority position of both the parties and it will meet the ends of justice. - Analysing all these positions of law, the Learned Judge has directed the Department to prepare the revised seniority list and it was also directed by the Division Bench at the time of Admission. Therefore, if this Hon’ble Court is pleased to call for the revised seniority list as per the PRS marks, it will completely disprove the stand taken by the Official Respondents that the 1st Batch were considered as seniors. Hence, there is no delay on their part. In the light of this factual matrix, the plea of the appellants “ that the seniority once settled cannot be unsettled” does not arise in this case. The counter affidavit will throw detailed facts.
- Our Apex court has held that once the gross injustice is noticed by the court of law, then all technicalities, rules and other aspects need not be looked into for the purpose of rendering justice vide (1993 ) 4 SCC 269. [ UOI vs Reddappa and another ]. In [2000] 3 SCC 588, apex court held tht Fundamental rights cannot be given up or barted away even by consent. Hence, even if the respondents did not object within 3 years, they are entitled to claim their fundamental right to promotion proper. In (2015) 10 SCC 292 and (2007) 1 SCC 513, it was held that Govt. have powers to revise the seniority, it if was wrongly given before. In this case also, those who secured low marks has been enjoying better salary and position for several years. But it is denied to the respondents. In view of it, the appellants cannot have any grievance towards revising the inter-se seniority of both the parties.
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above W.A. No. 732 of 2022, pass such other order as may be deemed fit and proper and render justice.
Dated in Chennai this the 15th day of September, 2023.
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS-1 TO 50IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) W.A. NO. 732 OF 2022
Saraswathy and 52 Others
…Appellants
VS
Paranthaman and 49 Others
...Respondents 1 to 50
State of Tamilnadu and 2 Others
...Respondents-51to 53
WRITTEN SUBMISSION
FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS - 1 to 50
M/S K.RAVI ANANTHA PADMANABAN MR. B. THIRUMALAI
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS- 1TO 50