w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



A. Vinoth Kumar v/s The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep by its Chairman, Chennai & Others

    Writ Petition (MD).No.7299 of 2010 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010

    Decided On, 03 November 2010

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. RAMANATHAN

    For the Petitioner: M. Ajmalkhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.C. Herold Singh, Government Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer:- Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.D1/1197/2010 dated 24.05.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Grade-II Police Constable under the Scheduled Caste (Ministerial Ward) Quota in pursuance of the notification issued for recruitment of Grade-II Police Constable (Men and Women)-2009.)


The petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constable in response to the notification issued by the first respondent and has written the test conducted on 25.10.2009 and he secured 33 marks. In the Physical Efficiency Test conducted on 10.12.2009, he was given 15 out of 15 and was declared as qualified.


2. According to him, the cut of marks for the appointment for the Scheduled Caste candidate is 47 marks and he has secured 48 marks in the written marks and Physical Efficiency Test which is above the cut of marks for Scheduled Caste candidates and therefore, he comes within the zone of consideration and he is entitled to be considered for appointment.


3. Nevertheless, on the basis of some anonymous complaint, the petitioner was asked to appear for the test of rope climbing on 16.12.2009, on the ground that some fraud has been played in respect of the petitioner and another and it was alleged that without undergoing the rope climbing test, the marks were awarded to the petitioner and on that basis, he was called to re-do the rope climbing test on 16.12.2009. On 16.12.2009, he was not able to climb the required height in rope climbing and therefore, he was disqualified and hence, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.2101 of 2010 before this Court for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by taking into account 15 marks secured by him in the Physical Efficiency Test held on 10.12.2009.


4. This Court, after hearing both parties passed an order on 09.03.2010, directing the third respondent to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the rope climbing by giving him four days time in advance and after conducting the test, the third respondent has to decide and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, by proceedings dated 10.05.2000, the third respondent informed the petitioner that the rope climbing test would be conducted on 17.05.2010 at Dindigul Armed Reserve Police. It was postponed to 18.05.2010 and while issuing that communication it was stated that if the petitioner comes out successfully in the rope climbing test, he has to undergo the other two tests, namely long jump and 400 meter dash.


5. According to the petitioner, as per the order of this Court, the third respondent was directed to conduct the test of rope climbing and there was no direction to the third respondent to direct the petitioner to undergo the other two tests. Nevertheless, the petitioner appeared before the third respondent on 18.05.2010 and participated in all the three events and he was awarded 5 marks for rope climbing' two marks for long jump and 5 marks for 400 meter dash. Therefore, the petitioner secured only total marks 12 in the Physical Efficiency Test and after adding the same with the written test marks the total marks secured by him was 45 which is below the cut of marks and therefore, he was rejected by the first respondent by order dated 24.05.2010, which is challenged in this writ petition.


6. Mr.M. AjmalKhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the test conducted on 10.12.2009, petitioner participated in all the three events and he was given full marks and all the three events were supervised by three different officers and all of them certified that the petitioner is qualified in those three events and therefore, considering all these aspects, this Court has directed the third respondent to conduct the rope climbing test alone and therefore, the respondents erred in directing the petitioner to undergo all the three tests. According to him, the marks obtained by the petitioner in the 400 meters running and long jump on the tests conducted on 10.12.2009, ought not to have been taken into consideration and only in respect of rope climbing the third respondent ought to have conducted the test and in that event, the petitioner would have secured 15 marks and would have become qualified. He therefore submitted that the third respondent acted beyond the scope of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2101 of 2010 dated 09.03.2010, and hence, the disqualification of the petitioner on the ground of his securing less marks in the long jump is not proper and it is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that while issuing the letter dated 10.05.2010, he was asked to do the test of rope climbing as per the direction of this Court in the above writ petition and in subsequent proceedings dated 18.05.2010, he was asked to participate in all the three events after getting qualified in the rope climbing event and the respondents ought not to have directed the petitioner to undergo the other two tests except the rope climbing test. Further, in the proceedings dated 11.05.2010, issued by the third respondent, it has been specifically stated that after coming out successfully in the rope climbing test, he has to participate in the long jump and 400 meters dash, which he had participated on the earlier occasion and that would also prove that on 10.12.2009, the petitioner participated in the long jump and 400 meter running and in those two events, he was given full marks and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been given 15 marks in the Physical Efficiency Test and ought to have been selected.


7. The first respondent filed counter affidavit stating that after the tests conducted on 10.12.2009, news published in the Thina Thanthi stating that children of two women staff of District Police Office, Dindigul were qualified without participating in the rope climbing event and therefore the petitioner was asked to participate in the rope climbing event on 16.12.2009 and on that date, he failed and hence, he was not selected. It is further stated that only after getting qualified in the rope climbing test, the person would be allowed to participate in the other two events and though the petitioner was directed to do the rope climbing events on 16.12.2009, he did not pass in the tests and hence, the question of directing the petitioner to undergo two other tests did not arise and after the order of this Court in the above writ petition, the petitioner was directed to undergo rope climbing test and having qualified in that test, he was directed to participate in the other two events and in the long jump, he secured only two marks and the total marks obtained by the petitioner in the Physical Efficiency Test conducted on 18.05.2010 was only 12 marks and after adding the same with the written test marks, he is not qualified.


8. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that only after passing in the rope climbing test a person will be permitted to participate in the other two events and therefore, when it was brought to the notice that some fraud has been practiced upon in the matter of selection, the petitioner was directed to do the rope climbing test and as he failed in that, he was not asked to do the remaining two tests. He further submitted that even though this Court in the above writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2101 of 2010 has directed the third respondent to do the rope climbing test for the petitioner and did not specifically state that the petitioner has to undergo the other two tests but as per the procedure, only after getting qualified in rope climbing, the petitioner can be allowed to participate in other two events and therefore, there is nothing illegal or irregular in directing the petitioner to participate in the other two events, on 18.05.2010 and in the other two events the petitioner secured only two marks in the long jump and hence he did not secure the minimum marks required for SC candidates and hence, he is disqualified and therefore, the order is valid in law.


9. In this case, it is admitted that the petitioner was called upon to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test on 10.12.2009. It is also admitted that the petitioner secured 15 marks in the Physical Efficiency Tests namely 5 marks in each events. Therefore, adding 15 marks to the written test, the marks the petitioner secured 48 marks which is above the cut of marks for SC candidates and hence, as per the tests held on 10.12.2009, the petitioner was qualified to be considered for appointment. Nevertheless, on the basis of a news item published in the papers, the respondents thought fit to conduct the test of rope climbing for some persons including the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to attend the tests of rope climbing on 16.12.2009.


10. It is seen from the proceedings of the third respondent dated 16.12.2009 that as per the news published in the Daily Thanthi on 16.12.2009, the allegations were levelled against the two women that their sons were qualified without participating in the rope climbing event. Therefore, as per the direction of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dindigul, the petitioner and other candidates were directed to attend the test of rope climbing event on 16.12.2009. In the memo dated 15.12.2009, calling upon the petitioner to undergo rope climbing test on 16.12.2009 also, it has not been stated that after passing in the rope climbing, he has to undergo the other two tests if he comes out successfully in the rope climbing test.


11. This Court also passed an order in W.P(MD)No.2107 of 2010, directing the third respondent to conduct the rope climbing test for the petitioner and in that writ petition it was not argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents that after coming out successfully in the rope climbing test, the petitioner has to undergo the other two test. As a matter of fact, while issuing notice dated 10.05.2010, as per the directions of this Court, the petitioner was directed to participate only in the rope climbing test on 17.05.2010 and only by proceedings dated 11.05.2010, it has been stated for the first time that if the petitioner comes out successfully in the rope climbing test, he has to participate in the other two events. Further in the said letter dated 11.05.2010, it is also admitted that the petitioner also participated in the long jump and 400 meter dash in the earlier occasion. Therefore, from the contents of the notice dated 11.05.2010, it is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner has participated in the long jump and 400 meter running on 10.12.2009. Further, after the news report, the petitioner was directed to participate only for rope climbing and as stated supra, it is seen from the newspaper report that without participating in the rope climbing test, the children of some staffs were given marks. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the respondents were also aware that there was some suspicion about the participation of the petitioner in the rope climbing test and only for that purpose, the petitioner was asked to participate in the rope climbing test on 16.12.2009. Even in the letter dated 10.05.2010, it was not stated that after successful completion of rope climbing tests, he must participate in the other two tests. Further, in the writ petition in W.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

P(MD)No.2101 of 2010, this Court has directed the respondent to conduct only the rope climbing test and neither any direction was given to the respondents to conduct the other two test nor the respondents contended in the writ petition that after the successful completion of rope climbing test, the petitioner has to undergo the two other tests. 12. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the petitioner has participated in the long jump and 400 meter dash on 10.12.2009 and secured 5 marks in each of the events and in the rope climbing test, he secured 5 marks on 18.05.2010 and hence, the petitioner has secured 15 marks in the Physical Efficiency Tests and thus, secured 48 marks in total which is above the cut of marks and therefore, the petitioner is qualified to be considered for appointment and the impugned order of disqualifying the petitioner on the ground that he has secured less cut of marks on the basis of tests conducted on 18.05.2010, is not in accordance with law and it is liable to be set aside. 13. In the result,the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for the post of Grade II Police Constable if he is otherwise eligible. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
O R