Madras High Court quashes seniority list of sub-inspectors

Chennai: In a judgment which will have a far-reaching effect on the seniority of sub-inspectors (technical) in the police department, the Madras high court has quashed the seniority list of sub-inspectors (technical), prepared way back in 2007.

Allowing a petition from P.K. Murugan, sub-inspector (technical), police telecommunication branch, Justice V. Parthiban directed the authorities to re-cast the petitioner’s seniority and the similarly placed persons on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the technical training as provided for under Rule 10 (b) of the ad hoc rules by harmonious reading of Rule 25 (a) of the Special Rules with the ad hoc rules on the basis of underlying principle of purposive interpretation in the larger interest of the police department, the judge added.

According to petitioner, he and others were recruited as sub-inspectors (technical) in 2001. Thereafter, he came to know that the seniority was fixed on the basis of the marks obtained by the SIs (technical) in the general training, instead of technical training. Therefore, he filed the present petition.

The judge said from the ad hoc rules, it was manifest that a clear and due emphasis was placed on the technical knowledge of the personnel to be recruited as SIs (technical), the posts of SIs (technical) were not interchangeable and they have to remain as such on the technical side till their retirement. Such being the case, it was rather preposterous that the administration has given undue weightage only to the proficiency in general knowledge, completely wishing away their proficiency in the technical subjects/training, the judge added.

The judge said, “This court is of the considered view that the assignment of seniority on the basis of marks obtained in the training as provided for under Rule 10 (a) of the ad hoc rules alone cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. In the instant case, the application of Rule 25 (a) of the Special Rules is not only unreasonable and arbitrary but, the same is irrational too, which cannot be accepted to be a tenable administrative exercise”.